SI of Police Karaikudi North PS vs Lakshmanan — 589/2022

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 147,447,427,294(b)323,506(I)IPC. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 30th March 2026.

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNSV190019512022

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

976/2022

Filing Date

20-02-2017

Registration No

589/2022

Registration Date

20-02-2017

Court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi

Judge

5-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi

Decision Date

30th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

FIR Details

FIR Number

273

Police Station

Karaikudi North Police Station

Year

2014

Acts & Sections

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 Section 147,447,427,294(b)323,506(I)IPC
TN PROHIBITION OF HARASSMENT OF WOMAN ACT, 2002 Section 4

Petitioner(s)

SI of Police Karaikudi North PS (Police Station)

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

Lakshmanan

Velu

Muventhar

Hearing History

Judge: 5-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi

30-03-2026

Disposed

27-03-2026

Judgement

25-03-2026

Questioning

24-03-2026

Evidence

12-03-2026

Evidence

Final Orders / Judgements

30-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi acquitted accused persons No. 7 and 10 of all charges under IPC sections 147, 427, 323, 506(1) and Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, primarily because the principal witnesses (complainant and victim) turned hostile during trial, contradicting their original statements and entering into a compromise with the accused, while no corroborating independent evidence was available. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi acquitted accused persons No. 7 and 10 of all charges under IPC sections 147, 427, 323, 506(1) and Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, primarily because the principal witnesses (complainant and victim) turned hostile during trial, contradicting their original statements and entering into a compromise with the accused, while no corroborating independent evidence was available. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case