Vellimedupettai PS vs Arivarasan — 168/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),506(2),352IPC. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 16th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNVP100007242025
e-Filing Number
29-04-2025
Filing Number
717/2025
Filing Date
10-05-2025
Registration No
168/2025
Registration Date
12-05-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate No. I Court, Tindivanam
Judge
1-Judicial Magistrate I
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
207
Police Station
VellimeduPettai P.S.
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vellimedupettai PS (Police Station)
Adv. Sub Inspector of Police Vellimedupettai Police station
Respondent(s)
Arivarasan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate I
Disposed
Questioning
Part Heard
Trial
Trial
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 11-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 04-03-2026 | Trial |
| 11-02-2026 | Trial |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: CC 168/2025 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate acquitted defendant Arivarasan of charges under IPC Sections 294(b) (obscene language), 352 (assault), and 506(2) (criminal intimidation), finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The defendant was discharged under Section 271(1) BNSS. Key Reasoning: Although the complainant (PW-1) and eyewitness (PW-2) testified to an alleged altercation on August 4, 2021, their testimonies were contradictory and unhelpful to the prosecution. Critically, PW-2 could not identify who attacked them due to darkness at the scene, and PW-1 only suspected the defendant based on hearsay rather than direct evidence. The other witnesses provided no corroborating support, creating reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: CC 168/2025 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate acquitted defendant Arivarasan of charges under IPC Sections 294(b) (obscene language), 352 (assault), and 506(2) (criminal intimidation), finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The defendant was discharged under Section 271(1) BNSS. Key Reasoning: Although the complainant (PW-1) and eyewitness (PW-2) testified to an alleged altercation on August 4, 2021, their testimonies were contradictory and unhelpful to the prosecution. Critically, PW-2 could not identify who attacked them due to darkness at the scene, and PW-1 only suspected the defendant based on hearsay rather than direct evidence. The other witnesses provided no corroborating support, creating reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts