State Government by Inspector of Police, Kadayanallur PS vs Seetharaman Advocate - Tr.G.Sudalaikani — 13/2025

Case under Sc / St (prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va). Disposed: Contested--CLOSED on 09th April 2026.

RCS - Referred Charge Sheet

CNR: TNTS010024212025

Case disposed

Filing Number

1657/2025

Filing Date

08-04-2025

Registration No

13/2025

Registration Date

08-04-2025

Court

Principal District Court, Tenkasi

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Decision Date

09th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--CLOSED

FIR Details

FIR Number

157

Police Station

Kadayanallur P.S.,

Year

2021

Acts & Sections

SC / ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va)
INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 Section 447, 506(1)
MP/1/2025 Classification : Others Section SeetharamanState Government by Inspector of Police, Kadayanallur PS

Petitioner(s)

State Government by Inspector of Police, Kadayanallur PS (Police Station)

Respondent(s)

Seetharaman Advocate - Tr.G.Sudalaikani

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Principal District Judge

09-04-2026

Disposed

07-04-2026

Orders

24-03-2026

Appearance

10-03-2026

Appearance

10-02-2026

Appearance

Final Orders / Judgements

09-04-2026
Copy of Order

The court dismissed the complainants' objection petition and accepted the police's final report classifying the case as "Mistake of Fact." The court found that independent witnesses contradicted allegations of caste-based abuse and criminal intimidation, and that the complainants failed to establish documentary proof of property ownership, determining the core dispute was civil in nature rather than criminal. The court directed the complainants to pursue their property rights claims in civil court instead. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court dismissed the complainants' objection petition and accepted the police's final report classifying the case as "Mistake of Fact." The court found that independent witnesses contradicted allegations of caste-based abuse and criminal intimidation, and that the complainants failed to establish documentary proof of property ownership, determining the core dispute was civil in nature rather than criminal. The court directed the complainants to pursue their property rights claims in civil court instead. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Principal District Court, Tenkasi All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case