Sub Inspector of Police Salavakkam Police Station vs DIWAAKAR — 147/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 296(b),308(4),351(3). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 26th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNKP100008302025
e-Filing Number
18-06-2025
Filing Number
780/2025
Filing Date
19-06-2025
Registration No
147/2025
Registration Date
19-06-2025
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthiramerur
Judge
1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
26th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
155
Police Station
VISHNU KANCHEE POLICE STATION
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sub Inspector of Police Salavakkam Police Station
Adv. Sub Inspector of Police Salavakkam Police Station
Respondent(s)
DIWAAKAR
AJITH
VENKATESAN
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Questioning
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 26-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 23-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 12-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 03-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 24-02-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: CC 147/2025 The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate acquitted all three accused (Diwakar, Ajith, and Venkatesan) of charges under BNS Sections 296(b), 308(4), and 351(3) for allegedly abusing, threatening, and snatching ₹1,000 from a shop owner. The court found the prosecution's case failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, noting that key witnesses (complainant and seizure mahazar witnesses) turned hostile and compromised with the accused, while documentary evidence from the investigating officer alone was insufficient to establish the alleged crime. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: CC 147/2025 The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate acquitted all three accused (Diwakar, Ajith, and Venkatesan) of charges under BNS Sections 296(b), 308(4), and 351(3) for allegedly abusing, threatening, and snatching ₹1,000 from a shop owner. The court found the prosecution's case failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, noting that key witnesses (complainant and seizure mahazar witnesses) turned hostile and compromised with the accused, while documentary evidence from the investigating officer alone was insufficient to establish the alleged crime. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts