State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Sirkali Police Station vs Parthiban — 134/2023

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 25 294 b 341. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 09th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNMY080035942023

Filing Number

3594/2023

Filing Date

01-Jun-2023

Registration No

134/2023

Registration Date

01-Jun-2023

Court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Sirkali

Judge

1-Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

09-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 18-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

23

Police Station

Sirkali Police Station

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 25 294 b 341

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Sirkali Police Station

    Adv. C. MALATHI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Parthiban

  2. 2.Dineshkumar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

    The Judicial Magistrate Court in Sirkali acquitted the three accused (Parthiban, Dinesh Kumar, and Johnson) of charges under IPC sections 341, 294(b), 386, 506(ii) and Arms Act section 25(1-B)(b), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the key prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and corroborating witnesses, gave contradictory testimonies that were inconsistent with the investigating officer's evidence, making it unsafe to convict based solely on the police officer's testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate

  4. 25-Feb-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  5. 23-Feb-2026

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  6. 23-Feb-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  7. 19-Feb-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  8. 10-Feb-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  9. 28-Jan-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  10. 09-Jan-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  11. 24-Dec-2025

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  12. 02-Dec-2025

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  13. 01-Dec-2025

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  14. 27-Nov-2025

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  15. 27-Nov-2025

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  16. 24-Nov-2025

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  17. 24-Nov-2025

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  18. 11-Nov-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  19. 22-Oct-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  20. 17-Oct-2025

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate

  21. 06-Oct-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  22. 04-Sep-2025

    Issue of Process

    Judicial Magistrate

  23. 29-Jul-2025

    Issue of Process

    Judicial Magistrate

  24. 03-Jun-2025

    Issue of Process

    Judicial Magistrate

  25. 02-Apr-2025

    Issue of Process

    Judicial Magistrate

  26. 03-Feb-2025

    Issue of Process

    Judicial Magistrate

  27. 13-Dec-2024

    Issue of Process

    Judicial Magistrate

  28. 08-Oct-2024

    Issue of Process

    Judicial Magistrate

  29. 30-Aug-2024

    Issue of Process

    Judicial Magistrate

  30. 18-Jun-2024

    Issue of Process

    Judicial Magistrate

  31. 17-May-2024

    Issue of Process

    Judicial Magistrate

  32. 05-Apr-2024

    Issue of Process

    Judicial Magistrate

  33. 14-Feb-2024

    Issue of Process

    Judicial Magistrate

  34. 26-Dec-2023

    Issue of Process

    Judicial Magistrate

  35. 09-Nov-2023

    Issue of Process

    Judicial Magistrate

  36. 14-Sep-2023

    Issue of Process

    Judicial Magistrate

  37. 26-Jul-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  38. 01-Jun-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 134/2023

casestatus.in Summary

The Judicial Magistrate Court in Sirkali acquitted the three accused (Parthiban, Dinesh Kumar, and Johnson) of charges under IPC sections 341, 294(b), 386, 506(ii) and Arms Act section 25(1-B)(b), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the key prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and corroborating witnesses, gave contradictory testimonies that were inconsistent with the investigating officer's evidence, making it unsafe to convict based solely on the police officer's testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case