Inspector of Police, AWPS Nannilam vs Aravindhan and five others Advocate - THIRU. R. MUTHAIYAN — 33/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code 1860 Section 294(b), 498A, 406, 120B, 506(ii), 352, 341. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTV130004152023
Next Hearing
12th June 2026
Filing Number
415/2023
Filing Date
15-06-2023
Registration No
33/2023
Registration Date
16-06-2023
Court
Additional Mahila Court at Magisterial level, Tiruvarur
Judge
10-Judicial Magistrate[Additional Mahila Court],Tiruvarur
FIR Details
FIR Number
05
Police Station
ALL WOMEN P.S., NANNILAM
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Inspector of Police, AWPS Nannilam
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Aravindhan and five others Advocate - THIRU. R. MUTHAIYAN
Jayalakshmi
Kaliyamoorthi
Ramya
Revathi
Bharadhan
Hearing History
Judge: 10-Judicial Magistrate[Additional Mahila Court],Tiruvarur
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-05-2026 | Evidence |
| 08-05-2026 | Evidence |
| 10-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 20-02-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: CC.No.33/2023 A domestic dispute case involving allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty. The petitioner (witness for the government) testified that his daughter-in-law (A.S.1) was subjected to harassment by her husband (Accused 1) and in-laws for additional jewelry and dowry. He alleged physical abuse, threats, and confinement. The respondents contested the allegations through cross-examination, challenging the credibility and timeline of claims. The court's order dismissed the case, finding insufficient evidence of the alleged offenses and noting inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony. The court ruled "Allowed" with no conviction warranted under the relevant provisions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: CC.No.33/2023 A domestic dispute case involving allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty. The petitioner (witness for the government) testified that his daughter-in-law (A.S.1) was subjected to harassment by her husband (Accused 1) and in-laws for additional jewelry and dowry. He alleged physical abuse, threats, and confinement. The respondents contested the allegations through cross-examination, challenging the credibility and timeline of claims. The court's order dismissed the case, finding insufficient evidence of the alleged offenses and noting inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony. The court ruled "Allowed" with no conviction warranted under the relevant provisions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts