Inspector of Police, PagasalaiPS vs BALAKUMARAN — 772/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294b),427,506(I). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 10th March 2026.

Case disposed

STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case

CNR: TNMY020058772024

e-Filing Number

22-10-2024

Filing Number

5835/2024

Filing Date

25-Oct-2024

Registration No

772/2024

Registration Date

25-Oct-2024

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Mayiladuthurai

Judge

7-Judicial Magistrate No.2

Decision Date

10-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 26-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

24

Police Station

Pagasalai Police Station

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 294b),427,506(I)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Inspector of Police, PagasalaiPS

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BALAKUMARAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Mar-2026

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

    Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court II, Mayiladuthurai acquitted Balakumaran of all charges under IPC sections 294(b), 427, and 506(1) after finding the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the key complainant (PW1) did not identify the accused at the occurrence, could not recall the date, and testified based on mere suspicion due to prior disagreement—contradicting the prosecution's case. Additionally, the eyewitness turned hostile, leaving only police documentary evidence insufficient to convict. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate No.2

  4. 24-Feb-2026

    Judgement

    Judicial Magistrate No.2

  5. 16-Feb-2026

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  6. 16-Feb-2026

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  7. 16-Feb-2026

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  8. 16-Feb-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate No.2

  9. 10-Feb-2026

    Service Pending-Summon

    Judicial Magistrate No.2

  10. 09-Feb-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate No.2

  11. 05-Feb-2026

    For further Proceedings

    Judicial Magistrate No.2

  12. 29-Jan-2026

    For further Proceedings

    Judicial Magistrate No.2

  13. 19-Jan-2026

    Service Pending-Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No.2

  14. 16-Dec-2025

    Service Pending-Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No.2

  15. 18-Nov-2025

    Service Pending-Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No.2

  16. 03-Nov-2025

    Service Pending-Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No.2

  17. 29-Sep-2025

    Service Pending-Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No.2

  18. 01-Sep-2025

    Service Pending-Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No.2

  19. 20-Aug-2025

    Service Pending-Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No.2

  20. 30-Jul-2025

    Service Pending-Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No.2

  21. 10-Jul-2025

    Service Pending-Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No.2

  22. 27-Jun-2025

    Service Pending-Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No.2

  23. 13-Jun-2025

    Service Pending-Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No.2

  24. 30-May-2025

    Service Pending-Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No.2

  25. 12-May-2025

    Service Pending-Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No.2

  26. 15-Apr-2025

    Service Pending-Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No.2

  27. 02-Apr-2025

    Service Pending-Summon

    Judicial Magistrate No.2

  28. 07-Mar-2025

    Service Pending-Summon

    Judicial Magistrate No.2

  29. 06-Feb-2025

    Service Pending-Summon

    Judicial Magistrate No.2

  30. 08-Jan-2025

    Service Pending-Summon

    Judicial Magistrate No.2

  31. 11-Dec-2024

    Service Pending-Summon

    Judicial Magistrate No.2

  32. 06-Dec-2024

    Service Pending-Summon

    Judicial Magistrate No.2

  33. 02-Dec-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  34. 25-Oct-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 772/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court II, Mayiladuthurai acquitted Balakumaran of all charges under IPC sections 294(b), 427, and 506(1) after finding the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the key complainant (PW1) did not identify the accused at the occurrence, could not recall the date, and testified based on mere suspicion due to prior disagreement—contradicting the prosecution's case. Additionally, the eyewitness turned hostile, leaving only police documentary evidence insufficient to convict. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case