The Sub Inspector of Police Jalakandapuram Police Station vs Yuvaraj — 667/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 506(1),352,294(b),354(A),509. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 01st April 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNSA180025302024
e-Filing Number
14-07-2024
Filing Number
2528/2024
Filing Date
18-07-2024
Registration No
667/2024
Registration Date
02-12-2024
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Mettur
Judge
4-Judicial Magistrate - II, Mettur
Decision Date
01st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The Sub Inspector of Police Jalakandapuram Police Station
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Yuvaraj
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Judicial Magistrate - II, Mettur
Disposed
Judgement
Questioning
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 01-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 27-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 26-03-2026 | Questioning | |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 27-02-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court II, Mettur acquitted all three accused (Yuvaraj, Latha, and Sathishkumar) of charges under IPC sections 294(b), 352, 354(A), 509, 506(i) and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. The court found that although the prosecution examined six witnesses and presented evidence of alleged dowry demand, sexual harassment, and threats in a domestic dispute, the key witnesses (PW1—the complainant—and PW3—her father) retracted their statements during cross-examination after the accused and complainant reconciled and reunited. Since the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, all accused were acquitted under CrPC Section 248(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court II, Mettur acquitted all three accused (Yuvaraj, Latha, and Sathishkumar) of charges under IPC sections 294(b), 352, 354(A), 509, 506(i) and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. The court found that although the prosecution examined six witnesses and presented evidence of alleged dowry demand, sexual harassment, and threats in a domestic dispute, the key witnesses (PW1—the complainant—and PW3—her father) retracted their statements during cross-examination after the accused and complainant reconciled and reunited. Since the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, all accused were acquitted under CrPC Section 248(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts