STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE vs Gokul — 390/2025

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),506(1),352. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 30th March 2026.

Case disposed

STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case

CNR: TNTV150015012025

e-Filing Number

12-12-2025

Filing Number

1395/2025

Filing Date

12-Dec-2025

Registration No

390/2025

Registration Date

12-Dec-2025

Court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodavasal

Judge

1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

30-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

1624

Police Station

KODAVASAL P.S

Year

2020

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),506(1),352

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

    Adv. INSPECTOR OF POLICE KODAVASAL PS

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Gokul

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: STC 390/2025 Court's Decision: The District Magistrate-cum-Judicial Magistrate acquitted both accused (Gokul and Surya) under IPC sections 294(b), 352, and 506(1), invoking the benefit of doubt under CrPC section 248(1). Key Reasoning: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. While the complainant initially provided detailed testimony about the alleged assault and abuse, his testimony contained significant inconsistencies and contradictions. Other prosecution witnesses (PW2 and PW3) were not present during the alleged incident and could provide no direct evidence. The court noted that the complainant later executed a settlement deed under CrPC section 320, indicating the dispute was of a purely personal nature. Applying the principle from *Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab*, the court concluded that maintaining criminal proceedings with no likelihood of conviction would wastefully burden the judiciary, and therefore discharged the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  4. 26-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  5. 24-Mar-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  6. 24-Mar-2026

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  7. 23-Mar-2026

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  8. 13-Mar-2026

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  9. 24-Feb-2026

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  10. 31-Dec-2025

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  11. 15-Dec-2025

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  12. 12-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  13. 12-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 390/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: STC 390/2025 Court's Decision: The District Magistrate-cum-Judicial Magistrate acquitted both accused (Gokul and Surya) under IPC sections 294(b), 352, and 506(1), invoking the benefit of doubt under CrPC section 248(1). Key Reasoning: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. While the complainant initially provided detailed testimony about the alleged assault and abuse, his testimony contained significant inconsistencies and contradictions. Other prosecution witnesses (PW2 and PW3) were not present during the alleged incident and could provide no direct evidence. The court noted that the complainant later executed a settlement deed under CrPC section 320, indicating the dispute was of a purely personal nature. Applying the principle from *Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab*, the court concluded that maintaining criminal proceedings with no likelihood of conviction would wastefully burden the judiciary, and therefore discharged the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case