STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE vs JEGATHEESAN — 83/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 386,506(2). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 20th April 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTV150008072025
e-Filing Number
28-06-2025
Filing Number
728/2025
Filing Date
07-Jul-2025
Registration No
83/2025
Registration Date
09-Jul-2025
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodavasal
Judge
1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
20-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Last updated 02-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
212
Police Station
KODAVASAL P.S
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Adv. INSPECTOR OF POLICE KODAVASAL PS
Respondent(s)
-
1.JEGATHEESAN
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
20-Apr-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
The court acquitted the accused Jegatheesan of charges under IPC sections 386 (extortion) and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation), finding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The key witness (PW1) gave contradictory testimony that undermined the government's case, and the court determined insufficient credible evidence existed to convict despite witness testimony from the investigating officer. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
20-Apr-2026
Disposed
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
17-Apr-2026
Judgement
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
16-Apr-2026
DepositionView PDF
-
16-Apr-2026
Questioning
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
09-Apr-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
26-Mar-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
24-Mar-2026
DepositionView PDF
-
24-Mar-2026
DepositionView PDF
-
24-Mar-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
17-Mar-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
13-Mar-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
06-Mar-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
03-Mar-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
20-Feb-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
10-Feb-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
02-Feb-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
27-Jan-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
19-Jan-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
12-Jan-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
30-Dec-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
09-Dec-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
02-Dec-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
25-Nov-2025
DepositionView PDF
-
25-Nov-2025
DepositionView PDF
-
25-Nov-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
18-Nov-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
11-Nov-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
28-Oct-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
07-Oct-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
30-Sep-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
09-Sep-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
02-Sep-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
26-Aug-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
19-Aug-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
12-Aug-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
04-Aug-2025
Questioning
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
21-Jul-2025
Issue of Service
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
09-Jul-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-Jul-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 83/2025
The court acquitted the accused Jegatheesan of charges under IPC sections 386 (extortion) and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation), finding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The key witness (PW1) gave contradictory testimony that undermined the government's case, and the court determined insufficient credible evidence existed to convict despite witness testimony from the investigating officer. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts