Kalikudi P.S. vs Pandi — 55/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),323,506(1). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 15th April 2026.
SC - Sessions Case
CNR: TNMD010004112025
Filing Number
342/2025
Filing Date
20-01-2025
Registration No
55/2025
Registration Date
20-01-2025
Court
Principal District Court, Madurai
Judge
10-IV Additional District and sessions Judge
Decision Date
15th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
91
Police Station
Kallikudi Police Station
Year
2017
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kalikudi P.S.
Respondent(s)
Pandi
Hearing History
Judge: 10-IV Additional District and sessions Judge
Disposed
Questioning
Evidence
Evidence
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 15-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 09-04-2026 | Questioning |
| 30-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 24-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-03-2026 | Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 55/2025 The Fourth Additional District Sessions Court, Madurai acquitted the accused Pandi of all charges under IPC sections 294(b), 323, 506(ii), and section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act. The court found that despite prosecution testimony, the evidence was insufficient to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt—specifically, that the accused used abusive language, assaulted witnesses, and damaged a vehicle on 4 April 2017. The court determined that key prosecution witnesses provided inconsistent statements, and the sole eyewitness lacked credibility, warranting acquittal under the benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary of Case 55/2025 The Fourth Additional District Sessions Court, Madurai acquitted the accused Pandi of all charges under IPC sections 294(b), 323, 506(ii), and section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act. The court found that despite prosecution testimony, the evidence was insufficient to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt—specifically, that the accused used abusive language, assaulted witnesses, and damaged a vehicle on 4 April 2017. The court determined that key prosecution witnesses provided inconsistent statements, and the sole eyewitness lacked credibility, warranting acquittal under the benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts