SIP Karaikudi North PS vs Rajendran and 2 others Advocate - sornam.g — 320/2022
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),323,506(ii). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 10th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNSV190014132022
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
707/2022
Filing Date
17-06-2015
Registration No
320/2022
Registration Date
17-06-2015
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi
Judge
5-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
100
Police Station
Karaikudi North Police Station
Year
2015
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SIP (Sub-Inspector of Police) Karaikudi North PS (Police Station)
Adv. App
Respondent(s)
Rajendran and 2 others Advocate - sornam.g
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 05-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 27-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 25-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The Karaikudi Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted accused Rajendran and Subramanian of charges under IPC sections 294(b) (obscene language), 323 (simple hurt), and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation) in a 2015 assault case. The court found material contradictions in witness testimonies—particularly that eyewitness PW5 stated only the first accused assaulted the complainant, contradicting PW1's claim that all accused attacked him—and held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Key evidentiary gaps included witnesses not clearly establishing annoyance from obscenity or alarm from threats, and inconsistencies regarding when the police recorded the complaint. Bail bonds were cancelled and sureties discharged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary: The Karaikudi Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted accused Rajendran and Subramanian of charges under IPC sections 294(b) (obscene language), 323 (simple hurt), and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation) in a 2015 assault case. The court found material contradictions in witness testimonies—particularly that eyewitness PW5 stated only the first accused assaulted the complainant, contradicting PW1's claim that all accused attacked him—and held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Key evidentiary gaps included witnesses not clearly establishing annoyance from obscenity or alarm from threats, and inconsistencies regarding when the police recorded the complaint. Bail bonds were cancelled and sureties discharged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts