72/24 Sub Inspector Of Police kadaladi vs Ganesan — 153/2024
Case under Police Force (restriction of Rights) Act, 1966 Section 294(b),324.506(2). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 06th April 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNRM100035232024
e-Filing Number
25-07-2024
Filing Number
3496/2024
Filing Date
27-07-2024
Registration No
153/2024
Registration Date
08-10-2024
Court
District Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Court, Kadaladi
Judge
100-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi
Decision Date
06th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
72
Police Station
KADALADI P.S
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
72/24 Sub Inspector Of Police kadaladi
Respondent(s)
Ganesan
Hearing History
Judge: 100-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi
Disposed
Judgement
Questioning
Evidence
Trial
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 01-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 25-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 23-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-03-2026 | Trial |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The District Court in Kadaladi acquitted the defendant of charges under IPC Sections 294(b) (obscene language), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation) due to insufficient evidence. The court found that while the prosecution presented four witnesses and medical evidence of injury, key inconsistencies—particularly the complainant's contradictory testimony and reconciliation with the defendant—created reasonable doubt that could not be overcome beyond reasonable certainty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The District Court in Kadaladi acquitted the defendant of charges under IPC Sections 294(b) (obscene language), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation) due to insufficient evidence. The court found that while the prosecution presented four witnesses and medical evidence of injury, key inconsistencies—particularly the complainant's contradictory testimony and reconciliation with the defendant—created reasonable doubt that could not be overcome beyond reasonable certainty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts