Sub Inspector Of Police Thirumuruganpoondi PS vs SIVA KARTHIK AND 3 OTHERS — 917/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 140(3),308(4). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 09th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTI130067942025
e-Filing Number
26-12-2025
Filing Number
6794/2025
Filing Date
29-12-2025
Registration No
917/2025
Registration Date
29-12-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Avinashi
Judge
2-Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sub Inspector Of Police Thirumuruganpoondi PS (Police Station)
Respondent(s)
SIVA KARTHIK AND 3 OTHERS
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Issue of Service
Issue of Service
Issue of Service
Issue of Service
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 06-03-2026 | Issue of Service | |
| 04-03-2026 | Issue of Service | |
| 03-03-2026 | Issue of Service | |
| 26-02-2026 | Issue of Service |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Avinashi Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted all four accused (Sivakarthick, Vijay, Lingeswaran, and Gowtham) of charges under BNS Sections 140(3) and 308(4) for alleged abduction, threats with a knife, and chain snatching. The court found the primary witness (complainant) testified that he didn't know the complaint's contents, only signed it, and had reached a mutual settlement with the accused, completely undermining the prosecution's case. The investigator's testimony merely established procedural compliance without credible evidence proving the alleged crimes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Decision Summary The Avinashi Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted all four accused (Sivakarthick, Vijay, Lingeswaran, and Gowtham) of charges under BNS Sections 140(3) and 308(4) for alleged abduction, threats with a knife, and chain snatching. The court found the primary witness (complainant) testified that he didn't know the complaint's contents, only signed it, and had reached a mutual settlement with the accused, completely undermining the prosecution's case. The investigator's testimony merely established procedural compliance without credible evidence proving the alleged crimes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts