State Government Sub Inspector of police, Erumapatty PS vs ANANDAN and 2 others Advocate - Akilan.A — 35/2025

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),323,324,506(2). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 04th June 2026.

Case disposed

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNNM140001722025

e-Filing Number

27-12-2024

Filing Number

172/2025

Filing Date

19-Mar-2025

Registration No

35/2025

Registration Date

19-Mar-2025

Court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Sendamangalam

Judge

28-Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

Decision Date

04-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 16-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

158

Police Station

Erumapatty P.S.

Year

2021

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),323,324,506(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State Government Sub Inspector of police, Erumapatty PS (Police Station)

    Adv. Additional Public Prosecutor

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ANANDAN and 2 others Advocate - Akilan.A

  2. 2.MALARKODI

    Adv. Akilan.A

  3. 3.CHANDRAN

    Adv. Akilan.A

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-Jun-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case 35/2025 Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Sendamangalam acquitted all three accused (Anandan, Malarkodi, and Chandran) on June 4, 2026, finding the prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court identified critical inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence—her testimony contradicted her own complaint statement regarding who assaulted whom, and medical evidence contradicted claims about injury locations, particularly regarding a left knee abrasion versus alleged right leg assault with a spade. Without corroborating eyewitness testimony and facing witness credibility issues compounded by prior enmity (pending divorce case between accused and complainant's daughter), the prosecution could not establish the offenses of obscene language (IPC 294b), simple hurt (323), voluntarily causing hurt (324), or criminal intimidation (506ii). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-Jun-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  4. 03-Jun-2026

    Judgement

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  5. 02-Jun-2026

    Judgement

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  6. 29-May-2026

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  7. 26-May-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  8. 25-May-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  9. 22-May-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  10. 22-May-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  11. 07-May-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  12. 28-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  13. 17-Apr-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  14. 17-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  15. 15-Apr-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  16. 15-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  17. 30-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  18. 24-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  19. 12-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  20. 05-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  21. 03-Mar-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  22. 03-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  23. 12-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  24. 29-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  25. 08-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  26. 18-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  27. 09-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  28. 02-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  29. 13-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  30. 04-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  31. 23-Oct-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  32. 23-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  33. 16-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  34. 09-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  35. 02-Sep-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  36. 02-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  37. 21-Aug-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  38. 21-Aug-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  39. 21-Aug-2025

    Service Pending

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  40. 12-Aug-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  41. 12-Aug-2025

    Service Pending

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  42. 05-Aug-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  43. 05-Aug-2025

    Service Pending

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  44. 31-Jul-2025

    Service Pending

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  45. 08-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  46. 24-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  47. 21-Jun-2025

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  48. 17-Jun-2025

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  49. 09-Jun-2025

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  50. 05-May-2025

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  51. 23-Apr-2025

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  52. 19-Mar-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  53. 19-Mar-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 35/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case 35/2025 Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Sendamangalam acquitted all three accused (Anandan, Malarkodi, and Chandran) on June 4, 2026, finding the prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court identified critical inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence—her testimony contradicted her own complaint statement regarding who assaulted whom, and medical evidence contradicted claims about injury locations, particularly regarding a left knee abrasion versus alleged right leg assault with a spade. Without corroborating eyewitness testimony and facing witness credibility issues compounded by prior enmity (pending divorce case between accused and complainant's daughter), the prosecution could not establish the offenses of obscene language (IPC 294b), simple hurt (323), voluntarily causing hurt (324), or criminal intimidation (506ii). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case