SI OF POLICE UDUMALPET vs NAVEENKUMAR — 283/2022
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 353,341. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 18th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTI170017992022
Filing Number
1799/2022
Filing Date
12-12-2022
Registration No
283/2022
Registration Date
12-12-2022
Court
Judicial Magistrate No. I Court, Udumalpet
Judge
3-Judicial Magistrate No. I, Udumalpet
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
222
Police Station
Udumalpet Police Station
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SI OF POLICE UDUMALPET
Adv. SivaGnanam Assistant Public Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
NAVEENKUMAR
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Judicial Magistrate No. I, Udumalpet
Disposed
Judgement
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 09-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 04-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 02-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 18-02-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Udumalpet Magistrate Court acquitted both accused persons under Indian Penal Code Sections 353 and 341, finding insufficient evidence that they obstructed a police officer's duty or wrongfully restrained public movement during a temple procession on April 21, 2022. Although prosecution witnesses testified the accused created a dispute over procession precedence and blocked traffic, contradictions in witness accounts regarding timing and specifics, lack of public complaints, and absence of corroborating evidence prevented the court from proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt under applicable legal standards. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Decision Summary The Udumalpet Magistrate Court acquitted both accused persons under Indian Penal Code Sections 353 and 341, finding insufficient evidence that they obstructed a police officer's duty or wrongfully restrained public movement during a temple procession on April 21, 2022. Although prosecution witnesses testified the accused created a dispute over procession precedence and blocked traffic, contradictions in witness accounts regarding timing and specifics, lack of public complaints, and absence of corroborating evidence prevented the court from proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt under applicable legal standards. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts