Sub Inspector of Police, Kudavasal Police Station vs Suresh — 38/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code 1860 Section 294(b), 324, 506(ii). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 18th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTV130002202024
Filing Number
219/2024
Filing Date
08-03-2024
Registration No
38/2024
Registration Date
08-03-2024
Court
Additional Mahila Court at Magisterial level, Tiruvarur
Judge
10-Judicial Magistrate[Additional Mahila Court],Tiruvarur
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
919
Police Station
KUDAVASAL P.S.,
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sub Inspector of Police, Kudavasal Police Station
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Suresh
Hearing History
Judge: 10-Judicial Magistrate[Additional Mahila Court],Tiruvarur
Disposed
Questioning
Evidence
Evidence
Await Reports
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 13-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 20-02-2026 | Await Reports |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: CC No. 38/2024 Court Decision: The accused Suresh (also called Senthilkumar) was acquitted of all charges under IPC sections 294(b), 324, and 506(ii). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt through credible witness testimony and evidence. Key Reasoning: The court noted that the complainant (PW1) and eyewitness (PW2) gave contradictory statements that were unreliable. Only the investigating officer (PW3) testified based on documents rather than direct knowledge. Critically, the parties reached a compromise during trial, and applying the Supreme Court's guidance in *Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab*, the court accepted the settlement given the personal nature of the dispute. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: CC No. 38/2024 Court Decision: The accused Suresh (also called Senthilkumar) was acquitted of all charges under IPC sections 294(b), 324, and 506(ii). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt through credible witness testimony and evidence. Key Reasoning: The court noted that the complainant (PW1) and eyewitness (PW2) gave contradictory statements that were unreliable. Only the investigating officer (PW3) testified based on documents rather than direct knowledge. Critically, the parties reached a compromise during trial, and applying the Supreme Court's guidance in *Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab*, the court accepted the settlement given the personal nature of the dispute. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts