Inspector of Police, Poombukar vs Kalaidoss — 227/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),324,506(2). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 11th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNMY090005862024
e-Filing Number
26-02-2024
Filing Number
558/2024
Filing Date
27-02-2024
Registration No
227/2025
Registration Date
25-11-2025
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Tharangambadi
Judge
1-District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Tharangambadi
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
430
Police Station
Poompuhar Police Station
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Inspector of Police, Poombukar
Adv. Inspector of police poompuhar
Respondent(s)
Kalaidoss
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Tharangambadi
Disposed
Judgement
Questioning
Part Heard
Trial
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 06-03-2026 | Questioning | |
| 04-03-2026 | Part Heard | |
| 18-02-2026 | Trial |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The District Magistrate Court in Tarangambadi acquitted both defendants of charges under IPC Sections 294(b), 324, and 506(ii) (abusive language, causing hurt, and criminal intimidation). The court found that the prosecution witnesses, particularly the complainant (witness 1), gave contradictory testimony—initially claiming specific injuries from a stone attack but later admitting uncertainty about the attackers' identities and that he filed a false complaint. Since the government's case rested on unreliable witness testimony and lacked corroborating evidence, the court ruled that the charges were not proven beyond reasonable doubt and discharged the defendants under Section 271(1) BNSS. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The District Magistrate Court in Tarangambadi acquitted both defendants of charges under IPC Sections 294(b), 324, and 506(ii) (abusive language, causing hurt, and criminal intimidation). The court found that the prosecution witnesses, particularly the complainant (witness 1), gave contradictory testimony—initially claiming specific injuries from a stone attack but later admitting uncertainty about the attackers' identities and that he filed a false complaint. Since the government's case rested on unreliable witness testimony and lacked corroborating evidence, the court ruled that the charges were not proven beyond reasonable doubt and discharged the defendants under Section 271(1) BNSS. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts