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

Case disposed

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

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 296(b), 115(2), 351(2)

Petitioner(s)

SI of Police Uthappanaickanur PS (Police Station)

Respondent(s)

Ajay and another

Nagaraj

Hearing History

Judge: 2-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO II, USILAMPATTI.

12-03-2026

Disposed

06-03-2026

Judgement

05-03-2026

Judgement

04-03-2026

Trial

02-03-2026

Trial

Final Orders / Judgements

12-03-2026
Copy of Judgment/Order

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

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Judicial Magistrate No. II Court, Usilampatti All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case