Avalurpet SHO vs SELVARAJ — 178/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),352,506(2). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 16th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNVP180004932025
e-Filing Number
04-04-2025
Filing Number
492/2025
Filing Date
05-04-2025
Registration No
178/2025
Registration Date
07-04-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Gingee
Judge
1-Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
238
Police Station
Avalurpet P.S.
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Avalurpet SHO (Station House Officer)
Adv. APP Gr.II
Respondent(s)
SELVARAJ
SARASU
SANKARI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Questioning
Part Heard
Trial
Trial
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 04-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 23-02-2026 | Trial |
| 12-01-2026 | Trial |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case 178/2025 Summary Court Decision: The Magistrate Court acquitted all three accused (Selvaraj, Sarasu, and Sankari) of the charges under IPC sections 294(b), 324, 506(ii) and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and ordered their release under BNSS section 271(1). Key Reasoning: While the court found contradictions between government witnesses (particularly between the complainant's account and the eye-witness testimony), it determined the prosecution had not established a credible case. The court noted inconsistencies in witness statements and concluded the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction against all three accused persons. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case 178/2025 Summary Court Decision: The Magistrate Court acquitted all three accused (Selvaraj, Sarasu, and Sankari) of the charges under IPC sections 294(b), 324, 506(ii) and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and ordered their release under BNSS section 271(1). Key Reasoning: While the court found contradictions between government witnesses (particularly between the complainant's account and the eye-witness testimony), it determined the prosecution had not established a credible case. The court noted inconsistencies in witness statements and concluded the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction against all three accused persons. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts