Tindivanam SHO vs Gnanamoorthy — 466/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 281,125(b). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 27th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNVP100020212025
e-Filing Number
24-08-2025
Filing Number
2009/2025
Filing Date
30-08-2025
Registration No
466/2025
Registration Date
03-09-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate No. I Court, Tindivanam
Judge
1-Judicial Magistrate I
Decision Date
27th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
119
Police Station
Tindivanam P.S.
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Tindivanam SHO (Station House Officer)
Adv. Sub inspector of police Tindivanam police station
Respondent(s)
Gnanamoorthy
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate I
Disposed
Judgement
Evidence
Questioning
Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 23-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 18-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 09-03-2026 | Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 466/2025 The court acquitted defendant Gnanamoorthy of charges under BNS Sections 281 (rash or negligent act) and 125(b) (causing hurt by act endangering life), finding insufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Though the injured party's testimony established a two-wheeler accident occurred on 27.03.2025, the court identified critical gaps: conflicting witness accounts about accident location, lack of evidence proving reckless driving, and investigative deficiencies (including missing medical records and inconsistent scene documentation). The defendant was discharged under Section 271(1) BNSS. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary of Case 466/2025 The court acquitted defendant Gnanamoorthy of charges under BNS Sections 281 (rash or negligent act) and 125(b) (causing hurt by act endangering life), finding insufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Though the injured party's testimony established a two-wheeler accident occurred on 27.03.2025, the court identified critical gaps: conflicting witness accounts about accident location, lack of evidence proving reckless driving, and investigative deficiencies (including missing medical records and inconsistent scene documentation). The defendant was discharged under Section 271(1) BNSS. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts