Crl.R.C.No.1529 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.08.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.R.C.No.1529 of 2025 V.Subramanian ..... Petitioner Vs 1.R.Pandian 2.R.Mohan 3.D.Jayakumar 4.Vasantha 5.Kannan 6.Mathiazhagan 7.Premkumar 8.State rep.by Sub Inspector of Police, Villupuram Taluk Town Police Station, Villupuram District crime No.107 of 2011 ..... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, praying to set aside the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Villupuram dated 01.06.2015 made in STC.No.2786 of 2011 and the judgment in Crl.A.No.71 of 2018 passed by the the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Villupuram dated 31.10.2023. For Petitioner : M/s.G.Sumitra For Respondents For R1 to 7 : Mr.S.Sairaman https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1529 of 2025 For R8 : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate(crl.side) O R D E R This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.71 of 2018 by the the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Villupuram dated 31.10.2023 confirming the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Villupuram dated 01.06.2015 in STC.No.2786 of 2011. 2. The case of the prosecution was that on 12.10.2010 at about 10.15 a.m., there was dispute between the petitioner and the accused while they were doing official duty in respect of issuance of no objection certificate. The accused also scolded him with filthy languages. On the complaint, the respondent registered FIR in crime No.107 of 2011 for the offence punishabe under Sections 147, 294(b), 506(i) r/w 149 of IPC. After completion of investigation, final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the trial court. 3. On the side of the prosecution, in order of bring the charges to home, they examined PW1 to PW6 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. On the side of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1529 of 2025 the accused, they examined DW1 and marked Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. On perusal of oral and documentary evidences, the trial court found the accused not guilty and acquitted them. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal and the same was also dismissed confirming the order of acquittal. Aggrieved by the same, this criminal revision case has been filed. 4. On perusal of records, it is revealed that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond any doubt. That apart, the allegations levelled against the accused were also not proved by any of the witnesses. Therefore, both the courts below concurrently held that the charges are not proved and rightly acquitted the respondents. As such, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgments. 5. Accordingly, this criminal revision case is dismissed. 28.08.2025 Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order lok https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1529 of 2025 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. lok To 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Villupuram 2.The learned Additional District Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Villupuram 3.Sub Inspector of Police, Villupuram Taluk Town Police Station, Villupuram District 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras Crl.R.C.No.1529 of 2025 28.08.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis