The Sub Inspector of police,Valinokkam vs Chelladurai,thomas Advocate - M.Kannan M.A., B.L., — 85/2023

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),323. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 26th May 2026.

Case disposed

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNRM100002922023

Filing Number

262/2023

Filing Date

07-Jul-2023

Registration No

85/2023

Registration Date

07-Jul-2023

Court

District Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Court, Kadaladi

Judge

100-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi

Decision Date

26-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 16-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

54

Police Station

Valinockam PS

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),323
Tn Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002 Section 4

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.The Sub Inspector of police,Valinokkam

    Adv. A.P.P

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Chelladurai,thomas Advocate - M.Kannan M.A., B.L.,

  2. 2.Thomas

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 26-May-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case 85/2023 - Summary Court Decision: The District Magistrate court in Kadaladi acquitted both defendants (Chelladurai and Thomas) of charges under IPC Sections 294(b), 323, and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. The prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the defendants were discharged under CrPC Section 248(1). Key Reasoning: The complainant's testimony contradicted the prosecution's case, stating he sustained no injuries from the alleged assault. While the investigating officer provided procedural evidence, without corroborating eyewitness testimony or the complainant's support, the charges could not be sustained. The court applied the principle of benefit of doubt in favor of the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 26-May-2026

    Disposed

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi

  4. 19-May-2026

    Copy of depositionView PDF

  5. 19-May-2026

    Questioning

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi

  6. 05-May-2026

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi

  7. 03-Mar-2026

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi

  8. 22-Jan-2026

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi

  9. 20-Nov-2025

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi

  10. 16-Sep-2025

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi

  11. 24-Jul-2025

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi

  12. 17-Jun-2025

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi

  13. 12-Dec-2024

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi

  14. 13-Jun-2024

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi

  15. 04-Apr-2024

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi

  16. 08-Feb-2024

    Service Pending-Summon

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi

  17. 05-Oct-2023

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi

  18. 21-Sep-2023

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi

  19. 14-Sep-2023

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi

  20. 07-Sep-2023

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi

  21. 04-Sep-2023

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi

  22. 07-Jul-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  23. 07-Jul-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 85/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case 85/2023 - Summary Court Decision: The District Magistrate court in Kadaladi acquitted both defendants (Chelladurai and Thomas) of charges under IPC Sections 294(b), 323, and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. The prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the defendants were discharged under CrPC Section 248(1). Key Reasoning: The complainant's testimony contradicted the prosecution's case, stating he sustained no injuries from the alleged assault. While the investigating officer provided procedural evidence, without corroborating eyewitness testimony or the complainant's support, the charges could not be sustained. The court applied the principle of benefit of doubt in favor of the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case