Sub Inspector Of Police Thanthonimala Ips vs Sivakumar Advocate - N.VINOTHKUMAR — 353/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 379. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 09th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNKR020049012024
e-Filing Number
19-06-2024
Filing Number
4065/2024
Filing Date
28-06-2024
Registration No
353/2024
Registration Date
01-07-2024
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Karur
Judge
7-Judicial Magistrate No.I
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
240
Police Station
Pasupathipalayam P.S
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sub Inspector Of Police Thanthonimala Ips
Adv. APP GR II
Sub Inspector Of Police Thanthonimala Ips
Adv. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THANTHONIMALAI PS
Respondent(s)
Sivakumar Advocate - N.VINOTHKUMAR
Hearing History
Judge: 7-Judicial Magistrate No.I
Disposed
Judgement
Questioning
Questioning
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 06-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 05-03-2026 | Questioning | |
| 02-03-2026 | Questioning | |
| 25-02-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Karur Criminal Court acquitted two accused individuals (Sivakumar and Sarathi) charged under IPC Section 379 (theft) of a Redmi mobile phone valued at ₹10,200 on March 18, 2024. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, noting significant credibility issues with witness testimonies and inconsistencies in the evidence presented, particularly regarding how and when the phone was allegedly stolen. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Decision Summary The Karur Criminal Court acquitted two accused individuals (Sivakumar and Sarathi) charged under IPC Section 379 (theft) of a Redmi mobile phone valued at ₹10,200 on March 18, 2024. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, noting significant credibility issues with witness testimonies and inconsistencies in the evidence presented, particularly regarding how and when the phone was allegedly stolen. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts