SHO D4 Avalurpet Ps vs PREMKUMAR — 852/2025

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),323,324,506(2). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 16th March 2026.

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNVP180016582025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

08-08-2025

Filing Number

1655/2025

Filing Date

14-08-2025

Registration No

852/2025

Registration Date

14-08-2025

Court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Gingee

Judge

1-Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

16th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),323,324,506(2)
Mp/1/2026 Classification : 320 Cr.pc Section PREMKUMARSHO D4 Avalurpet Ps
Mp/2/2026 Classification : 294 Cr.pc Section SHO D4 Avalurpet PsPREMKUMAR

Petitioner(s)

SHO (Station House Officer) D4 Avalurpet Ps (Police Station)

Respondent(s)

PREMKUMAR

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate

16-03-2026

Disposed

11-03-2026

Questioning

06-03-2026

Part Heard

17-02-2026

Trial

12-01-2026

Trial

Final Orders / Judgements

16-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

Case Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Chengalpattu acquitted the accused Permagumaar of charges under IPC Sections 294(b), 352, 324, and 506(ii) (obscene language, criminal intimidation, voluntarily causing hurt, and criminal intimidation) and discharged him under BNSS Section 271(1). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, as the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and contradictory, and the remaining documentary evidence was insufficient to establish the accused's guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

06-03-2026
Deposition
11-03-2026
Deposition
casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Chengalpattu acquitted the accused Permagumaar of charges under IPC Sections 294(b), 352, 324, and 506(ii) (obscene language, criminal intimidation, voluntarily causing hurt, and criminal intimidation) and discharged him under BNSS Section 271(1). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, as the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and contradictory, and the remaining documentary evidence was insufficient to establish the accused's guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Gingee All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case