State Government by Inspector of Police, SANKARANKOVIL TALUK PS vs Jeyaraman Advocate - K.Kasi — 19/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 296(b),351(2). Disposed: Contested--CLOSED on 21st April 2026.
RCS - Referred Charge Sheet
CNR: TNTS010045582025
e-Filing Number
13-08-2025
Filing Number
3378/2025
Filing Date
19-08-2025
Registration No
19/2025
Registration Date
19-08-2025
Court
Principal District Court, Tenkasi
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Decision Date
21st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--CLOSED
FIR Details
FIR Number
162
Police Station
Sankarankoil P.S.,
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Government by Inspector of Police, SANKARANKOVIL TALUK PS (Police Station)
Respondent(s)
Jeyaraman Advocate - K.Kasi
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District Judge
Disposed
Orders
Appearance
Appearance
Appearance
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 07-04-2026 | Orders |
| 10-03-2026 | Appearance |
| 10-02-2026 | Appearance |
| 09-12-2025 | Appearance |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Principal Sessions Judge, Tenkasi, accepted the police's "Mistake of Fact" final report and dismissed the complainant's protest petition in a case registered under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The court found that material witnesses gave inconsistent and contradictory statements, the alleged eyewitness was absent at the time of the incident, and there was insufficient independent evidence to substantiate the allegations of caste-based public abuse. The request for further investigation was rejected, though the complainant was granted liberty to file a fresh private complaint. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Principal Sessions Judge, Tenkasi, accepted the police's "Mistake of Fact" final report and dismissed the complainant's protest petition in a case registered under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The court found that material witnesses gave inconsistent and contradictory statements, the alleged eyewitness was absent at the time of the incident, and there was insufficient independent evidence to substantiate the allegations of caste-based public abuse. The request for further investigation was rejected, though the complainant was granted liberty to file a fresh private complaint. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts