State Government sikkal vs nagarajan — 163/2024
Case under Police Force (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966 Section 294(b),323,506(2). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 06th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNRM100037632024
e-Filing Number
08-08-2024
Filing Number
3731/2024
Filing Date
18-08-2024
Registration No
163/2024
Registration Date
17-10-2024
Court
District Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Court, Kadaladi
Judge
100-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi
Decision Date
06th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Government sikkal
Adv. Sub Inspector of Police Sikkal PS
Respondent(s)
nagarajan
Hearing History
Judge: 100-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi
Disposed
Judgement
Questioning
Trial
Trial
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 04-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 02-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 08-01-2026 | Trial |
| 30-10-2025 | Trial |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The District Court in Kadaladi acquitted the accused of charges under Indian Penal Code sections 294(b) (obscene language), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, citing contradictions in witness testimony—particularly the complainant's claim that he reconciled with the accused and that the injuries were unrelated. The court ruled in favor of the accused based on the benefit of doubt and ordered his release under CrPC section 248(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The District Court in Kadaladi acquitted the accused of charges under Indian Penal Code sections 294(b) (obscene language), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, citing contradictions in witness testimony—particularly the complainant's claim that he reconciled with the accused and that the injuries were unrelated. The court ruled in favor of the accused based on the benefit of doubt and ordered his release under CrPC section 248(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts