Tamil nadu state Rep by Inspector of Police vs Balamurugan — 408/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 278,337,338. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 29th June 2026.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNVR240012072025
Filing Number
1164/2025
Filing Date
11-Jul-2019
Registration No
408/2025
Registration Date
11-Jul-2019
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kariapatti
Judge
1-District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
29-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Last updated 01-Jul-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
105
Police Station
Kariapatti P.S.
Year
2019
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Tamil nadu state Rep by Inspector of Police
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.Balamurugan
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
29-Jun-2026
Disposed
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
24-Jun-2026
Judgement
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
22-Jun-2026
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
18-Jun-2026
Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF
Case Summary: STC.No.408/2025 This case involves a witness deposition (PW.7 Vinothkumar) in a traffic accident investigation at Judicial Magistrate Court, Kariapatti. On March 10, 2019, a vehicle collision occurred involving a car (TN 58 AB 9352) and a two-wheeler (TN 59 BR 0866), injuring two persons. The investigating officer registered an FIR under IPC Sections 279 and 337, later amended to include Section 338 after medical reports revealed serious injuries to one victim. The respondent Balamurugan allegedly drove one of the vehicles involved in the accident. During cross-examination, the respondent's counsel challenged the investigation credibility, suggesting private hospitals may inflate injury severity for profit and that the complaint was fabricated for compensation purposes. The witness maintained that proper investigation protocols were followed, including scene documentation, medical records collection, and vehicle inspection reports. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Jun-2026
Questioning
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
16-Jun-2026
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
11-Jun-2026
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
09-Jun-2026
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
05-Jun-2026
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
04-Jun-2026
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
19-May-2026
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
09-Apr-2026
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
24-Mar-2026
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
26-Feb-2026
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
29-Jan-2026
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
02-Jan-2026
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
18-Dec-2025
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
27-Nov-2025
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
13-Nov-2025
Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF
-
13-Nov-2025
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
10-Nov-2025
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
13-Oct-2025
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
22-Sep-2025
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
18-Aug-2025
Issue of Service
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
24-Jul-2025
Issue of Service
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
03-Jul-2025
Issue of Service
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
21-Jun-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
11-Jul-2019
Case filed
Registration No. 408/2025
Case Summary: STC.No.408/2025 This case involves a witness deposition (PW.7 Vinothkumar) in a traffic accident investigation at Judicial Magistrate Court, Kariapatti. On March 10, 2019, a vehicle collision occurred involving a car (TN 58 AB 9352) and a two-wheeler (TN 59 BR 0866), injuring two persons. The investigating officer registered an FIR under IPC Sections 279 and 337, later amended to include Section 338 after medical reports revealed serious injuries to one victim. The respondent Balamurugan allegedly drove one of the vehicles involved in the accident. During cross-examination, the respondent's counsel challenged the investigation credibility, suggesting private hospitals may inflate injury severity for profit and that the complaint was fabricated for compensation purposes. The witness maintained that proper investigation protocols were followed, including scene documentation, medical records collection, and vehicle inspection reports. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts