Inspector of Police vs Muralikannan Advocate - Muthuramalingam.M.K.M — 354/2018
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 341,294(b),323,324,506(2). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 24th April 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTH020033242018
Filing Number
1884/2018
Filing Date
12-12-2018
Registration No
354/2018
Registration Date
12-12-2018
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Theni
Judge
12-Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court
Decision Date
24th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
81
Police Station
Allinagaram P.S.
Year
2017
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Inspector of Police
Adv. A.P.P
Respondent(s)
Muralikannan Advocate - Muthuramalingam.M.K.M
Hearing History
Judge: 12-Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court
Disposed
Judgement
Questioning
Questioning
Trial
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 09-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 13-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 07-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 04-03-2026 | Trial |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: CC 354/2018 Court Decision: The Additional Women's Court (District Level), Theni acquitted Muralikannan on charges under IPC Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, and 506(2), finding the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The court found critical credibility issues with the key prosecution witness (PW1), who admitted to being reconciled with the accused and stated the complaint was filed by the now-deceased complainant. The investigating officer's testimony alone was insufficient to establish the charges without corroborating evidence, particularly as the medical evidence's temporal connection to the alleged incident remained questionable. The court determined the charges lacked sufficient evidence for conviction, warranting the accused's discharge under CrPC Section 248(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: CC 354/2018 Court Decision: The Additional Women's Court (District Level), Theni acquitted Muralikannan on charges under IPC Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, and 506(2), finding the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The court found critical credibility issues with the key prosecution witness (PW1), who admitted to being reconciled with the accused and stated the complaint was filed by the now-deceased complainant. The investigating officer's testimony alone was insufficient to establish the charges without corroborating evidence, particularly as the medical evidence's temporal connection to the alleged incident remained questionable. The court determined the charges lacked sufficient evidence for conviction, warranting the accused's discharge 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