SUB INSPECTOR OF THANTHONIMALAI P.S. vs K.BALASUBRAMANI — 567/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),379,427,506(2). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 09th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNKR020121582023
Filing Number
10664/2023
Filing Date
14-Sep-2023
Registration No
567/2025
Registration Date
26-May-2025
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Karur
Judge
7-Judicial Magistrate No.I
Decision Date
09-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Last updated 18-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
326
Police Station
Thanthonimalai P.s
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SUB INSPECTOR OF THANTHONIMALAI P.S.
Adv. APP GRADE
Respondent(s)
-
1.K.BALASUBRAMANI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
09-Mar-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Summary The Karur Criminal Court acquitted the accused Balsubramaniam on March 9, 2026, finding that the prosecution failed to prove charges under IPC sections 294(b), 379, 427, and 506(ii) beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the complainant (witness) had no direct knowledge of the incident, and while investigating officer's evidence supported the charges, the lack of corroborating eyewitness testimony created reasonable doubt. Consequently, the accused was discharged under CrPC Section 248(1), and seized property was ordered destroyed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
09-Mar-2026
Disposed
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
05-Mar-2026
Judgement
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
02-Mar-2026
Copy of Oral Evidence / DepositionView PDF
-
02-Mar-2026
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
26-Feb-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
23-Feb-2026
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
19-Dec-2025
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
11-Nov-2025
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
04-Aug-2025
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
26-May-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
14-Sep-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 567/2025
Summary The Karur Criminal Court acquitted the accused Balsubramaniam on March 9, 2026, finding that the prosecution failed to prove charges under IPC sections 294(b), 379, 427, and 506(ii) beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the complainant (witness) had no direct knowledge of the incident, and while investigating officer's evidence supported the charges, the lack of corroborating eyewitness testimony created reasonable doubt. Consequently, the accused was discharged under CrPC Section 248(1), and seized property was ordered destroyed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts