Inspector of Police vs Ananthakumar — 400132/2015
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 342,324. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 13th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTJ110003152015
Filing Number
132/2015
Filing Date
24-04-2015
Registration No
400132/2015
Registration Date
24-04-2015
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Pattukottai
Judge
4-Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
252
Police Station
Pattukkottai Taluka Police Station
Year
2013
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Inspector of Police
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Ananthakumar
Arivalagan
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Judgement
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 04-03-2026 | Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant |
| 03-03-2026 | Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant |
| 26-02-2026 | Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: CC-132/2015 The court acquitted two accused persons (Anantha Kumar and Arivazhan) charged under IPC sections 324 and 342 for allegedly assaulting a witness and causing injuries. The judge found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, noting that key prosecution witnesses gave contradictory statements—initially supporting the case during police investigation but later testifying opposite during trial. The court relied only on the investigating officer's testimony, which was insufficient to establish guilt, and therefore granted acquittal under CrPC Section 248(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: CC-132/2015 The court acquitted two accused persons (Anantha Kumar and Arivazhan) charged under IPC sections 324 and 342 for allegedly assaulting a witness and causing injuries. The judge found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, noting that key prosecution witnesses gave contradictory statements—initially supporting the case during police investigation but later testifying opposite during trial. The court relied only on the investigating officer's testimony, which was insufficient to establish guilt, and therefore granted acquittal under CrPC Section 248(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts