SI of Police Uthappanaickanur PS vs Ajay and another — 782/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 296(b), 115(2), 351(2). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 12th March 2026.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNMD180027362025
e-Filing Number
17-11-2025
Filing Number
2729/2025
Filing Date
18-11-2025
Registration No
782/2025
Registration Date
18-11-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate No. II Court, Usilampatti
Judge
2-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO II, USILAMPATTI.
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
150
Police Station
UTHAPANAICKANUR
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SI of Police Uthappanaickanur PS (Police Station)
Respondent(s)
Ajay and another
Nagaraj
Hearing History
Judge: 2-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO II, USILAMPATTI.
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Trial
Trial
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 06-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 05-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 04-03-2026 | Trial |
| 02-03-2026 | Trial |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted both accused (Ajay and Nagaraj) of charges under BNS sections 296(b), 115(2), and 351(2) for alleged assault and criminal intimidation. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as the main complainant testified she had compromised with the accused and exaggerated facts in her complaint, while other key witnesses turned hostile and provided no corroborating evidence. The court emphasized that suspicion cannot replace legal proof in criminal cases. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted both accused (Ajay and Nagaraj) of charges under BNS sections 296(b), 115(2), and 351(2) for alleged assault and criminal intimidation. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as the main complainant testified she had compromised with the accused and exaggerated facts in her complaint, while other key witnesses turned hostile and provided no corroborating evidence. The court emphasized that suspicion cannot replace legal proof in criminal cases. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts