State by Magadi Police vs Srujan Gowda J Advocate - L.GopalGowda — 3372/2022
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 504,498(A),R/W,Sec,34,of,IPC. Status: EVIDENCE.. Next hearing: 17th July 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KARN420036092022
Next Hearing
17th July 2026
e-Filing Number
06-04-2022
Filing Number
3366/2022
Filing Date
06-04-2022
Registration No
3372/2022
Registration Date
06-04-2022
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI
Judge
103-PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
FIR Details
FIR Number
0220
Police Station
MAGADI PS
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State by Magadi Police
Adv. no
Respondent(s)
Srujan Gowda J Advocate - L.GopalGowda
Jayshankar
Adv. L.GopalGowda
MGN Latha
Adv. L.GopalGowda
Hearing History
Judge: 103-PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
EVIDENCE.
EVIDENCE.
EVIDENCE.
EVIDENCE.
EVIDENCE.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | EVIDENCE. |
| 13-03-2026 | EVIDENCE. |
| 28-02-2026 | EVIDENCE. |
| 29-12-2025 | EVIDENCE. |
| 07-11-2025 | EVIDENCE. |
Interim Orders
Summary of Case 3372/2022 In this criminal case heard at Magadi JMFC on 28.02.2026, a witness was examined regarding charges under Sections 10/12 IPC. The prosecution's witness testified but provided largely inconsistent and evasive responses, claiming lack of knowledge about key facts including the identities of accused persons, details of alleged disputes, and circumstances of the alleged incident. The prosecution sought to treat the witness as hostile and was permitted cross-examination. However, the witness's testimony remained largely unhelpful to the prosecution's case. The court noted no further hearing was required, and the accused's counsel indicated no cross-examination was necessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 3372/2022 In this criminal case heard at Magadi JMFC on 28.02.2026, a witness was examined regarding charges under Sections 10/12 IPC. The prosecution's witness testified but provided largely inconsistent and evasive responses, claiming lack of knowledge about key facts including the identities of accused persons, details of alleged disputes, and circumstances of the alleged incident. The prosecution sought to treat the witness as hostile and was permitted cross-examination. However, the witness's testimony remained largely unhelpful to the prosecution's case. The court noted no further hearing was required, and the accused's counsel indicated no cross-examination was necessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts