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.

Case disposed

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNTH020033242018

Filing Number

1884/2018

Filing Date

12-Dec-2018

Registration No

354/2018

Registration Date

12-Dec-2018

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Theni

Judge

12-Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court

Decision Date

24-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

81

Police Station

Allinagaram P.S.

Year

2017

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 341,294(b),323,324,506(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Inspector of Police

    Adv. A.P.P

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Muralikannan Advocate - Muthuramalingam.M.K.M

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Apr-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    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.

  3. 24-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court

  4. 09-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court

  6. 07-Mar-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  7. 07-Mar-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  8. 07-Mar-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate

  9. 04-Mar-2026

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  10. 07-Feb-2026

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  11. 08-Jan-2026

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  12. 24-Nov-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  13. 14-Nov-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  14. 12-Nov-2025

    Framing of Charges

    Judicial Magistrate

  15. 29-Oct-2025

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  16. 18-Aug-2025

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  17. 16-Jul-2025

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  18. 28-May-2025

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  19. 24-Apr-2025

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  20. 26-Mar-2025

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  21. 30-Jan-2025

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  22. 20-Nov-2024

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  23. 26-Sep-2024

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  24. 27-Aug-2024

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  25. 01-Jul-2024

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  26. 23-May-2024

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  27. 04-Apr-2024

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  28. 07-Feb-2024

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  29. 27-Dec-2023

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  30. 29-Nov-2023

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  31. 27-Sep-2023

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  32. 08-Aug-2023

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  33. 24-May-2023

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  34. 15-Mar-2023

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  35. 09-Jan-2023

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  36. 14-Nov-2022

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  37. 28-Sep-2022

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  38. 17-Aug-2022

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  39. 25-May-2022

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  40. 22-Feb-2022

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  41. 01-Dec-2021

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  42. 09-Sep-2021

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  43. 06-May-2021

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  44. 22-Dec-2020

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  45. 13-Aug-2020

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  46. 26-May-2020

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  47. 05-Mar-2020

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  48. 03-Jan-2020

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  49. 02-Dec-2019

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  50. 27-Sep-2019

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  51. 30-Jul-2019

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  52. 24-May-2019

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  53. 15-Apr-2019

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  54. 14-Feb-2019

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  55. 23-Jan-2019

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  56. 21-Jan-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  57. 12-Dec-2018

    Case filed

    Registration No. 354/2018

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case