Sub Inspector Of Police Kurisilapet vs Thirupathi — 800067/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b)'323'506(1. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 13th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTU020055082024
e-Filing Number
19-03-2024
Filing Number
804658/2024
Filing Date
19-03-2024
Registration No
800067/2024
Registration Date
20-03-2024
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirupathur
Judge
8-Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thirupathur
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
70
Police Station
KURISILAPET POLICE STATION
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sub Inspector Of Police Kurisilapet
Respondent(s)
Thirupathi
Hearing History
Judge: 8-Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thirupathur
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 06-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 02-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 25-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate No. II of Tiruppattur acquitted all three accused (A1, A2, and A3) of charges under IPC sections 294(b), 323, and 506(1). Key Reasoning: The court found reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case. While witness testimony suggested abusive words were used, the court cited the Supreme Court judgment in N.S. Madhanagopal v. K.Lalitha, holding that mere abusive words don't constitute an offense under section 294(b) without proof of causing annoyance to others. Additionally, the medical evidence was insufficient to establish that accused A1 inflicted the alleged chest injury, and the threat charges lacked credible corroboration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate No. II of Tiruppattur acquitted all three accused (A1, A2, and A3) of charges under IPC sections 294(b), 323, and 506(1). Key Reasoning: The court found reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case. While witness testimony suggested abusive words were used, the court cited the Supreme Court judgment in N.S. Madhanagopal v. K.Lalitha, holding that mere abusive words don't constitute an offense under section 294(b) without proof of causing annoyance to others. Additionally, the medical evidence was insufficient to establish that accused A1 inflicted the alleged chest injury, and the threat charges lacked credible corroboration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts