State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Inspector of Police Perambalur PS vs Raja Advocate - C. VELUSAMY — 44/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 132,191(2),296(b). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 15th April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNPB020003602025

e-Filing Number

30-01-2025

Filing Number

343/2025

Filing Date

17-Feb-2025

Registration No

44/2025

Registration Date

17-Feb-2025

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Perambalur

Judge

6-Judicial Magistrate, No. I

Decision Date

15-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 19-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

825

Police Station

POLICE STATION PERMBALUR.

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 132,191(2),296(b)
Mp/6/2025 Classification : 317 Cr.pc Section State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Inspector of Police Perambalur PS
Mp/13/2026 Classification : 317 Cr.pc Section State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Inspector of Police Perambalur PS
Mp/16/2026 Classification : Others Section RajaState of Tamil Nadu Rep by Inspector of Police Perambalur PS

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Inspector of Police Perambalur PS (Police Station)

    Adv. THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, JM COURTS, PERAMBALUR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Raja Advocate - C. VELUSAMY

  2. 2.Dhanasegaran

    Adv. C. VELUSAMY

  3. 3.Vinoth

    Adv. C. VELUSAMY

  4. 4.Rajinikanth

    Adv. C. VELUSAMY

  5. 5.Mohana

    Adv. C. VELUSAMY

  6. 6.Kandaroobi

    Adv. C. VELUSAMY

  7. 7.Thulasi

    Adv. C. VELUSAMY

  8. 8.Agalya

    Adv. C. VELUSAMY

  9. 9.Kavitha

    Adv. C. VELUSAMY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Apr-2026

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

    Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Perambalur acquitted all nine accused persons under IPC Sections 191(2), 296(b), and 132, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the witness testimonies lacked specificity regarding the alleged obscene words and disturbance caused, and the documentary evidence was insufficient to establish guilt. Accordingly, the accused were discharged and their bail bonds cancelled. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate, No. I

  4. 08-Apr-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate, No. I

  5. 01-Apr-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate, No. I

  6. 25-Mar-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate, No. I

  7. 18-Mar-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate, No. I

  8. 11-Mar-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate, No. I

  9. 04-Mar-2026

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  10. 04-Mar-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate, No. I

  11. 25-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, No. I

  12. 18-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, No. I

  13. 28-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, No. I

  14. 21-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, No. I

  15. 07-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, No. I

  16. 03-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, No. I

  17. 05-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, No. I

  18. 22-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, No. I

  19. 24-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, No. I

  20. 03-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, No. I

  21. 20-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, No. I

  22. 13-Aug-2025

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  23. 13-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, No. I

  24. 30-Jul-2025

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  25. 30-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, No. I

  26. 09-Jul-2025

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  27. 09-Jul-2025

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  28. 09-Jul-2025

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  29. 09-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, No. I

  30. 02-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, No. I

  31. 16-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, No. I

  32. 11-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, No. I

  33. 05-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, No. I

  34. 26-May-2025

    Framing of Charges

    Judicial Magistrate, No. I

  35. 23-Apr-2025

    Service Pending-Summon

    Judicial Magistrate, No. I

  36. 18-Mar-2025

    Service Pending-Summon

    Judicial Magistrate, No. I

  37. 17-Feb-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  38. 17-Feb-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 44/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Perambalur acquitted all nine accused persons under IPC Sections 191(2), 296(b), and 132, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the witness testimonies lacked specificity regarding the alleged obscene words and disturbance caused, and the documentary evidence was insufficient to establish guilt. Accordingly, the accused were discharged and their bail bonds cancelled. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case