Sub-Inspector of Police, Peraiyur PS vs Ramasamy and 1 other Advocate - Tr.A.Muthirulappan — 69/2023

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),506(1). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 26th May 2026.

Case disposed

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNRM070019932023

Filing Number

1987/2023

Filing Date

11-Apr-2023

Registration No

69/2023

Registration Date

17-Apr-2023

Court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kamudhi

Judge

1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

26-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 16-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

44

Police Station

PERAIYOOR P.S

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),506(1)
Tn Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002 Section 4

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sub-Inspector of Police, Peraiyur PS (Police Station)

    Adv. P.M.Muniandi, APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ramasamy and 1 other Advocate - Tr.A.Muthirulappan

  2. 2.Divya

    Adv. Tr.A.Muthirulappan

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 26-May-2026

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: CC 69/2023 Court Decision: The District Munsiff (Civil & Judicial Magistrate) of Kumudi acquitted both accused under IPC Sections 294(b), 506(1), and Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment Act Section 4. The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; accused discharged under CrPC Section 248(1) and bail bonds cancelled. Key Reasoning: While the complainant alleged indecent behavior and threats against the accused over a relationship dispute on May 12, 2022, prosecution witnesses (particularly the complainant and scene-of-incident witness) provided contradictory testimonies. The investigating officer's testimony lacked corroboration from eyewitnesses regarding the alleged conduct, rendering the charges unproven. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 26-May-2026

    Disposed

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  4. 25-May-2026

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  5. 25-May-2026

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  6. 25-May-2026

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  7. 25-May-2026

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  8. 25-May-2026

    Questioning

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  9. 30-Mar-2026

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  10. 05-Jan-2026

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  11. 12-Nov-2025

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  12. 12-Sep-2025

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  13. 25-Jul-2025

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  14. 02-Apr-2025

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  15. 06-Nov-2024

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  16. 15-May-2024

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  17. 16-Feb-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  18. 06-Oct-2023

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  19. 04-Sep-2023

    Service Pending

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  20. 07-Jun-2023

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  21. 05-Jun-2023

    Framing of Charges

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  22. 26-May-2023

    Framing of Charges

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  23. 25-May-2023

    Copies

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  24. 17-Apr-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  25. 11-Apr-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 69/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC 69/2023 Court Decision: The District Munsiff (Civil & Judicial Magistrate) of Kumudi acquitted both accused under IPC Sections 294(b), 506(1), and Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment Act Section 4. The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; accused discharged under CrPC Section 248(1) and bail bonds cancelled. Key Reasoning: While the complainant alleged indecent behavior and threats against the accused over a relationship dispute on May 12, 2022, prosecution witnesses (particularly the complainant and scene-of-incident witness) provided contradictory testimonies. The investigating officer's testimony lacked corroboration from eyewitnesses regarding the alleged conduct, rendering the charges unproven. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case