Sub Inspector Of Police town ps vs Surendhar Advocate - GOWRISHANKAR S — 37/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),324,506(1)-IPC. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 09th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNRP090022772024
e-Filing Number
30-07-2024
Filing Number
2275/2024
Filing Date
30-07-2024
Registration No
37/2024
Registration Date
30-07-2024
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court No. I, Arakkonam
Judge
5-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Arakkonam
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
120
Police Station
Arakkonam Town
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sub Inspector Of Police town ps (Police Station)
Adv. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE AKM TN PS, YOGALAKSHMI
Respondent(s)
Surendhar Advocate - GOWRISHANKAR S
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Arakkonam
Disposed
Arguments
For further Proceedings
For further Proceedings
For further Proceedings
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 27-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 26-02-2026 | For further Proceedings | |
| 23-02-2026 | For further Proceedings | |
| 27-01-2026 | For further Proceedings |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary Case: Criminal Case No. 37/2024, Judicial Magistrate Court, Arakkonam Decision: The court acquitted both defendants (Surendar, age 22, and Vikki/Vikonash, age 25) of charges under IPC Sections 294(b) (obscene language), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 506(2) (criminal intimidation). The court found that the prosecution failed to establish sufficient credible evidence to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, as government witnesses provided contradictory testimonies that undermined the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Decision Summary Case: Criminal Case No. 37/2024, Judicial Magistrate Court, Arakkonam Decision: The court acquitted both defendants (Surendar, age 22, and Vikki/Vikonash, age 25) of charges under IPC Sections 294(b) (obscene language), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 506(2) (criminal intimidation). The court found that the prosecution failed to establish sufficient credible evidence to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, as government witnesses provided contradictory testimonies that undermined the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts