Adirampattinam Police Station vs Thiruppathi — 40/2022

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 294(b), 448, 323, 324, 506(2). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 11th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNTJ110004392022

Filing Number

429/2022

Filing Date

25-Jul-2022

Registration No

40/2022

Registration Date

25-Jul-2022

Court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Pattukottai

Judge

4-Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

11-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 19-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

180

Police Station

Adirampattinam Police Station

Year

2019

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 294(b), 448, 323, 324, 506(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Adirampattinam Police Station

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Thiruppathi

  2. 2.Hariharan

  3. 3.Vikki(Absconding)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Pattukkottai acquitted the two accused (Tirupathi and Hariharan) of charges under IPC Sections 294(b), 448, 324, and 506(2), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the prosecution witnesses, particularly the first four witnesses who gave statements to police, later contradicted themselves during trial, providing inconsistent testimony. The court noted that without credible and consistent witness testimony to corroborate the allegations of abusive language, assault, and threats, the prosecution could not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  6. 04-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  7. 26-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  8. 20-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  9. 18-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  10. 16-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  11. 05-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  12. 22-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  13. 20-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  14. 19-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  15. 02-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  16. 11-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  17. 20-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  18. 07-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  19. 06-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  20. 04-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  21. 30-Oct-2025

    Deposition of witnessView PDF

  22. 30-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  23. 25-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  24. 16-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  25. 09-Oct-2025

    Deposition of witnessView PDF

  26. 09-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  27. 09-Sep-2025

    Deposition of witnessView PDF

  28. 09-Sep-2025

    Deposition of witnessView PDF

  29. 09-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  30. 04-Sep-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  31. 19-Aug-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  32. 14-Aug-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  33. 11-Aug-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  34. 07-Aug-2025

    Deposition of witnessView PDF

  35. 07-Aug-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  36. 22-Jul-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  37. 23-Jun-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate

  38. 02-May-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate

  39. 13-Mar-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate

  40. 21-Jan-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate

  41. 26-Nov-2024

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate

  42. 16-Oct-2024

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  43. 14-Aug-2024

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  44. 18-Jul-2024

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  45. 07-Jun-2024

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  46. 03-May-2024

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  47. 20-Mar-2024

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  48. 06-Feb-2024

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  49. 27-Dec-2023

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  50. 20-Nov-2023

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  51. 03-Nov-2023

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  52. 14-Aug-2023

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  53. 07-Aug-2023

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  54. 03-Jul-2023

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  55. 26-Jun-2023

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  56. 21-Jun-2023

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  57. 16-Jun-2023

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  58. 14-Jun-2023

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate

  59. 05-Jun-2023

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  60. 21-Apr-2023

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  61. 07-Mar-2023

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  62. 16-Feb-2023

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  63. 19-Jan-2023

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  64. 21-Nov-2022

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  65. 22-Sep-2022

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  66. 25-Jul-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  67. 25-Jul-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 40/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Pattukkottai acquitted the two accused (Tirupathi and Hariharan) of charges under IPC Sections 294(b), 448, 324, and 506(2), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the prosecution witnesses, particularly the first four witnesses who gave statements to police, later contradicted themselves during trial, providing inconsistent testimony. The court noted that without credible and consistent witness testimony to corroborate the allegations of abusive language, assault, and threats, the prosecution could not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case