State of Karnataka vs Suresh Siddappa Soppin, Age. 33 Yrs., Occ. Farmer, R/o. Ganajur, Tq., and Dist., Haveri. — 31/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 323,363,325,504,506,34. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 13th March 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KAHV020002122023
Next Hearing
13th March 2026
Filing Number
31/2023
Filing Date
17-03-2023
Registration No
31/2023
Registration Date
17-03-2023
Court
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, HAVERI
Judge
352-PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Karnataka
Adv. Sr. APP
Respondent(s)
Suresh Siddappa Soppin, Age. 33 Yrs., Occ. Farmer, R/o. Ganajur, Tq., and Dist., Haveri.
Nagappa Yane Nagaraj Tirukappa Pasari, Age. 31 Yrs., Occ. Farmer, R/o. Ganajur, Haveri.
Hearing History
Judge: 352-PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 20-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 21-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 17-12-2025 | EVIDENCE |
| 21-11-2025 | EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary: In Criminal Case No. 31/2023 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Haveri, the witness examination concluded on 07.07.2025. The court found the witness testimony regarding a land dispute and alleged abduction/assault case to be lacking credibility and inconsistent. The accused contended that the witness made contradictory statements about identities, property details, and had no direct knowledge of the alleged incident. The court determined that further inquiry was unnecessary and closed the examination phase, indicating insufficient grounds to proceed with the criminal charges based on the witness evidence presented. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In Criminal Case No. 31/2023 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Haveri, the witness examination concluded on 07.07.2025. The court found the witness testimony regarding a land dispute and alleged abduction/assault case to be lacking credibility and inconsistent. The accused contended that the witness made contradictory statements about identities, property details, and had no direct knowledge of the alleged incident. The court determined that further inquiry was unnecessary and closed the examination phase, indicating insufficient grounds to proceed with the criminal charges based on the witness evidence presented. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts