INSPECTOR OF POLICE,UDUMALPET PS vs SUBRAMANIYAN(DHIVAN) — 131/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 331(4),305(a) BNS. Disposed: Contested--Conviction on 10th April 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTI170007972025
e-Filing Number
26-04-2025
Filing Number
796/2025
Filing Date
27-05-2025
Registration No
131/2025
Registration Date
27-05-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate No. I Court, Udumalpet
Judge
3-Judicial Magistrate No. I, Udumalpet
Decision Date
10th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Conviction
FIR Details
FIR Number
146
Police Station
Udumalpet Police Station
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
INSPECTOR OF POLICE,UDUMALPET PS (Police Station)
Respondent(s)
SUBRAMANIYAN(DHIVAN)
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Judicial Magistrate No. I, Udumalpet
Disposed
Judgement
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 25-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 24-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Court Decision The Judicial Magistrate-I of Udumalpet convicted the accused Subramaniyan @ Dhivan (age 22) under BNS 2023 Sections 331(4) (house theft) and 305(a) (criminal intimidation). The court sentenced him to one year rigorous imprisonment on each charge to run concurrently, treating 273 days of pre-trial detention as part of the sentence. The conviction was based on the complainant's testimony, confessional statements, seized gold ornaments worth approximately ₹77,500, and circumstantial evidence establishing the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary of Court Decision The Judicial Magistrate-I of Udumalpet convicted the accused Subramaniyan @ Dhivan (age 22) under BNS 2023 Sections 331(4) (house theft) and 305(a) (criminal intimidation). The court sentenced him to one year rigorous imprisonment on each charge to run concurrently, treating 273 days of pre-trial detention as part of the sentence. The conviction was based on the complainant's testimony, confessional statements, seized gold ornaments worth approximately ₹77,500, and circumstantial evidence establishing the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts