SI ofPolice Mallanginar P.S. vs Chithiran — 271/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),323,324,506(2). Disposed: Contested--Conviction on 10th June 2026.

Case disposed

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNVR240018412024

Filing Number

681/2024

Filing Date

25-Nov-2021

Registration No

271/2024

Registration Date

25-Nov-2021

Court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kariapatti

Judge

1-District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

10-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Conviction

Last updated 01-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

23

Police Station

Mallankinaru P.S.

Year

2019

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),323,324,506(2)
Tn Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002 Section 4

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SI ofPolice Mallanginar P.S.

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Chithiran

  2. 2.Karuppasamy

  3. 3.Arivumathi

  4. 4.Vasuki

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Jun-2026

    Copy of Judgment

    CASE SUMMARY: CC No. 271/2024 Court Decision: The court acquitted all four defendants (Chithiran, Karuppasamy, Arivumathi, and Vasuki) of charges under IPC Sections 294(B), 323, 324, 506(2) and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, Section 4. However, defendants Chithiran and Karuppasamy were convicted under IPC Section 324 (causing hurt with dangerous weapon) and each sentenced to ₹7,500 fine with one month simple imprisonment in default, while defendants 3 and 4 were acquitted of all charges. Key Facts: On 07.02.2019, the four accused allegedly attacked a man (the complainant) with swords and sticks, causing injuries. The accused were charged with using obscene language, causing hurt, criminal intimidation, and harassment of women. Reasoning: The court found that mere abusive words alone cannot constitute Section 294(B) offense without proof of causing annoyance to others, citing Supreme Court precedent. The court accepted injury witness testimony as more credible and found Section 324 charges proven against defendants 1-2 based on ocular evidence and medical certificates, though not all related witnesses proved reliable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Jun-2026

    Disposed

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  4. 06-Jun-2026

    Judgement

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  5. 04-Jun-2026

    Copy of Deposition/Evidence

  6. 04-Jun-2026

    Questioning

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  7. 14-May-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  8. 09-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  9. 24-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  10. 05-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  11. 29-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  12. 09-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  13. 01-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  14. 10-Nov-2025

    Copy of Deposition/Evidence

  15. 10-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  16. 27-Oct-2025

    Copy of Deposition/Evidence

  17. 27-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  18. 18-Aug-2025

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  19. 11-Aug-2025

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  20. 17-Jul-2025

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  21. 03-Jul-2025

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  22. 30-Jun-2025

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  23. 26-Jun-2025

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  24. 23-Jun-2025

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  25. 26-May-2025

    Copy of Deposition/Evidence

  26. 26-May-2025

    Counter

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  27. 15-May-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  28. 09-May-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  29. 17-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  30. 19-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  31. 05-Feb-2025

    Copy of Deposition/Evidence

  32. 05-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  33. 05-Dec-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  34. 08-Oct-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  35. 21-Sep-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  36. 25-Nov-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. 271/2024

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: CC No. 271/2024 Court Decision: The court acquitted all four defendants (Chithiran, Karuppasamy, Arivumathi, and Vasuki) of charges under IPC Sections 294(B), 323, 324, 506(2) and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, Section 4. However, defendants Chithiran and Karuppasamy were convicted under IPC Section 324 (causing hurt with dangerous weapon) and each sentenced to ₹7,500 fine with one month simple imprisonment in default, while defendants 3 and 4 were acquitted of all charges. Key Facts: On 07.02.2019, the four accused allegedly attacked a man (the complainant) with swords and sticks, causing injuries. The accused were charged with using obscene language, causing hurt, criminal intimidation, and harassment of women. Reasoning: The court found that mere abusive words alone cannot constitute Section 294(B) offense without proof of causing annoyance to others, citing Supreme Court precedent. The court accepted injury witness testimony as more credible and found Section 324 charges proven against defendants 1-2 based on ocular evidence and medical certificates, though not all related witnesses proved reliable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case