S.I.of Police, Checkkanurani P.S. vs Suresh and 2 others Advocate - A.Vasimalai — 18/2019
Case under --- Section 341, 323, 506(2). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 18th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNMD180001982019
Filing Number
191/2019
Filing Date
20-Feb-2019
Registration No
18/2019
Registration Date
20-Feb-2019
Court
Judicial Magistrate No. II Court, Usilampatti
Judge
2-Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
Decision Date
18-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Last updated 14-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
316
Police Station
CHECKANURANI
Year
2018
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.S.I.of Police, Checkkanurani P.S.
Adv. App2
Respondent(s)
-
1.Suresh and 2 others Advocate - A.Vasimalai
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
18-Mar-2026
Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF
Case Summary: CC 18/2019 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate acquitted all three accused (Suresh, Balamurugan, and Raja) of charges under IPC sections 323, 341, and 506(2) for alleged assault and criminal intimidation on 06/10/2018. Key Reasoning: The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The main complainant (PW1) turned hostile, admitting he had compromised with the accused and given exaggerated statements. The only other witness (PW2) testified solely on procedural/investigative matters without personal knowledge of the incident. The court held that formal investigative testimony cannot substitute substantive evidence proving the offense, and conviction cannot rest on such weak evidence given the presumption of innocence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Mar-2026
Disposed
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
17-Mar-2026
Judgement
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
16-Mar-2026
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
10-Mar-2026
Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF
-
10-Mar-2026
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
20-Feb-2026
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
23-Jan-2026
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
19-Dec-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
25-Nov-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
28-Oct-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
22-Sep-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
18-Aug-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
05-Aug-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
27-Jun-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
16-May-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
09-Apr-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
05-Mar-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
05-Feb-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
18-Dec-2024
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
27-Nov-2024
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
20-Nov-2024
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
16-Oct-2024
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
04-Sep-2024
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
06-Aug-2024
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
20-Jun-2024
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
05-Jun-2024
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
02-May-2024
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
28-Mar-2024
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
01-Feb-2024
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
21-Dec-2023
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
12-Dec-2023
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
01-Nov-2023
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
31-Oct-2023
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
08-Aug-2023
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
30-May-2023
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
-
23-Mar-2023
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
-
12-Jan-2023
Service Pending
-
03-Nov-2022
Service Pending
-
08-Sep-2022
Service Pending
-
07-Jul-2022
Service Pending
-
28-Apr-2022
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
17-Feb-2022
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
09-Dec-2021
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
16-Sep-2021
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
01-Jul-2021
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
22-Apr-2021
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
11-Feb-2021
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
17-Dec-2020
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
24-Sep-2020
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
22-Jul-2020
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
10-Jun-2020
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
25-Apr-2020
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
04-Jan-2020
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
02-Nov-2019
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
22-Aug-2019
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
27-Jun-2019
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
30-May-2019
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
29-Apr-2019
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
08-Apr-2019
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
01-Apr-2019
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
13-Mar-2019
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
11-Mar-2019
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
25-Feb-2019
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.
-
20-Feb-2019
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
20-Feb-2019
Case filed
Registration No. 18/2019
Case Summary: CC 18/2019 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate acquitted all three accused (Suresh, Balamurugan, and Raja) of charges under IPC sections 323, 341, and 506(2) for alleged assault and criminal intimidation on 06/10/2018. Key Reasoning: The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The main complainant (PW1) turned hostile, admitting he had compromised with the accused and given exaggerated statements. The only other witness (PW2) testified solely on procedural/investigative matters without personal knowledge of the incident. The court held that formal investigative testimony cannot substitute substantive evidence proving the offense, and conviction cannot rest on such weak evidence given the presumption of innocence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts