Roshanai SHO vs Alexander — 212/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),323,324,506(ii). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 16th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNVP100008462025
Filing Number
839/2025
Filing Date
19-05-2025
Registration No
212/2025
Registration Date
19-05-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate No. I Court, Tindivanam
Judge
1-Judicial Magistrate I
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Roshanai SHO (Station House Officer)
Adv. APP GRII
Respondent(s)
Alexander
Kumaresan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate I
Disposed
Judgement
Questioning
Part Heard
Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 11-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 09-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 06-03-2026 | Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: A Judicial Magistrate Court in Tindivanum acquitted two defendants (Alexander and Kumaresan) of charges under IPC Sections 294(b), 323, 324, and 506(2) (obscene language, causing hurt, voluntarily causing hurt with weapon, and criminal intimidation) in a case involving a funeral procession incident on July 3, 2023. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, as key witnesses (including the complaint and injured party) gave contradictory testimony that did not support the government's case, and the eyewitness and observation witnesses did not corroborate the alleged offenses. The court discharged the accused under BNSS Section 271(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary: A Judicial Magistrate Court in Tindivanum acquitted two defendants (Alexander and Kumaresan) of charges under IPC Sections 294(b), 323, 324, and 506(2) (obscene language, causing hurt, voluntarily causing hurt with weapon, and criminal intimidation) in a case involving a funeral procession incident on July 3, 2023. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, as key witnesses (including the complaint and injured party) gave contradictory testimony that did not support the government's case, and the eyewitness and observation witnesses did not corroborate the alleged offenses. The court discharged the accused under BNSS Section 271(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts