State Government by Inspector of DCB PS vs KAMARAJ — 77/2026
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 406,420. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 16th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTJ050005592026
e-Filing Number
06-02-2026
Filing Number
543/2026
Filing Date
07-02-2026
Registration No
77/2026
Registration Date
07-02-2026
Court
Judicial Magistrate Courts, Thanjavur
Judge
7-Judicial Magistrate No.I
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
3
Police Station
D.C.B Thanjavur
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Government by Inspector of DCB PS (Police Station)
Adv. Inspector of Police DCB
Respondent(s)
KAMARAJ
Ramachandran
Hearing History
Judge: 7-Judicial Magistrate No.I
Disposed
Judgement
Trial
Trial
Trial
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 12-03-2026 | Trial |
| 11-03-2026 | Trial |
| 07-03-2026 | Trial |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The Thanjavur District Criminal Court acquitted two defendants (Kamaraj and Ramachandran) charged under IPC sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) for allegedly defrauding a woman by promising to secure a government job for her son in exchange for ₹3,30,000. The court found that while the complainant initially admitted to settling the dispute amicably, the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and benefited from precedent that private settlements in such cases should not lead to continued criminal prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary The Thanjavur District Criminal Court acquitted two defendants (Kamaraj and Ramachandran) charged under IPC sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) for allegedly defrauding a woman by promising to secure a government job for her son in exchange for ₹3,30,000. The court found that while the complainant initially admitted to settling the dispute amicably, the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and benefited from precedent that private settlements in such cases should not lead to continued criminal prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts