Balehonnuru P.S. vs Chinnaiah — 659/2022

Case under Indian Penal Code Section U/sec, 427,379of I.P.C. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 18th March 2026.

C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES

CNR: KACM300007822022

EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

18th March 2026

e-Filing Number

16-08-2022

Filing Number

661/2022

Filing Date

16-08-2022

Registration No

659/2022

Registration Date

16-08-2022

Court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOPPA

Judge

221-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOPPA

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section U/sec, 427,379of I.P.C

Petitioner(s)

Balehonnuru P.S.

Respondent(s)

Chinnaiah

SURESHA

POORNESHA B G

NAGESHA

PUNITH

Hearing History

Judge: 221-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOPPA

06-03-2026

EVIDENCE

19-02-2026

EVIDENCE

04-02-2026

APPEARANCE OF ACCUSSED

17-01-2026

APPEARANCE OF ACCUSSED

18-12-2025

APPEARANCE OF ACCUSSED

Interim Orders

28-08-2024
Charge
13-12-2024
Charge
12-03-2025
Deposition
12-03-2025
Deposition
12-03-2025
Deposition
25-07-2025
Deposition
10-10-2025
Deposition

This court order is in Kannada language and relates to case CC.659/2022. Based on the document content: Summary: The court recorded the examination-in-chief of a witness (Satish Chasa, 52 years old, businessman) on 10/10/2025 in a criminal case. Various evidence items including documents, photographs, and a weapon (axe/chopper) were identified and marked as exhibits (NIP 8-18). The court allowed the witness to be treated as a hostile witness and permitted cross-examination by the accused's defense counsel. No further examination was required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

This court order is in Kannada language and relates to case CC.659/2022. Based on the document content: Summary: The court recorded the examination-in-chief of a witness (Satish Chasa, 52 years old, businessman) on 10/10/2025 in a criminal case. Various evidence items including documents, photographs, and a weapon (axe/chopper) were identified and marked as exhibits (NIP 8-18). The court allowed the witness to be treated as a hostile witness and permitted cross-examination by the accused's defense counsel. No further examination was required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOPPA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case