SI. OF POLICE, KUNDRAKUDI PS vs PRAPU — 1876/2022
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),323,324,324,506(2). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 23rd March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNSV190054372022
Filing Number
3564/2022
Filing Date
07-Oct-2022
Registration No
1876/2022
Registration Date
11-Oct-2022
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi
Judge
5-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
Decision Date
23-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Last updated 29-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
35
Police Station
Kundrakudi Police Station
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SI. OF POLICE, KUNDRAKUDI PS (Police Station)
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.PRAPU
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
23-Mar-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Case Summary: CC.No.1876/2022 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused Prabhu of all charges under IPC sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(2) and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The primary complainant (PW1) and eyewitnesses (PW2, PW3) turned hostile during trial, contradicting their original statements and testifying that no offense occurred. With critical witnesses recanting and no independent corroborating evidence, the court held that the Investigating Officer's testimony alone was insufficient to sustain conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
23-Mar-2026
Disposed
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
18-Mar-2026
Judgement
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
16-Mar-2026
Copy of depositionView PDF
-
16-Mar-2026
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
12-Mar-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
11-Mar-2026
Copy of depositionView PDF
-
11-Mar-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
25-Feb-2026
Framing of Charges
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
29-Dec-2025
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
22-Sep-2025
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
10-Jul-2025
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
28-May-2025
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
09-May-2025
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
17-Apr-2025
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
07-Apr-2025
Framing of Charges
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
08-Jan-2025
Framing of Charges
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
29-Nov-2024
Framing of Charges
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
10-Oct-2024
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
22-Aug-2024
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
30-May-2024
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
08-Apr-2024
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
04-Apr-2024
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
03-Jan-2024
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
08-Nov-2023
Framing of Charges
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
23-Aug-2023
Framing of Charges
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
07-Jun-2023
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
08-May-2023
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
13-Mar-2023
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
01-Feb-2023
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
17-Jan-2023
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
22-Nov-2022
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
11-Oct-2022
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-Oct-2022
Case filed
Registration No. 1876/2022
Case Summary: CC.No.1876/2022 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused Prabhu of all charges under IPC sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(2) and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The primary complainant (PW1) and eyewitnesses (PW2, PW3) turned hostile during trial, contradicting their original statements and testifying that no offense occurred. With critical witnesses recanting and no independent corroborating evidence, the court held that the Investigating Officer's testimony alone was insufficient to sustain conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts