The SHO of Padubidri Police Station vs Sangappa Sankannavar — 1767/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279,337,338. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 23rd April 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KAUP020035162024
Next Hearing
23rd April 2026
e-Filing Number
12-07-2024
Filing Number
1767/2024
Filing Date
12-07-2024
Registration No
1767/2024
Registration Date
12-07-2024
Court
PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT, UDUPI
Judge
602-I Addl Sr Civil Judge and ACJM Udupi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The SHO (Station House Officer) of Padubidri Police Station
Adv. Sr. App
Respondent(s)
Sangappa Sankannavar
Jayakumar M G
Hearing History
Judge: 602-I Addl Sr Civil Judge and ACJM Udupi
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
FRAMING OF CHARGE OR PLEA
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 23-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 27-11-2025 | EVIDENCE |
| 23-09-2025 | EVIDENCE |
| 12-08-2025 | FRAMING OF CHARGE OR PLEA |
Interim Orders
Summary This is a civil case (CC:1767/2024) heard by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and ACJMs Court in Udupi. The witness Prashant, son of Ruvindra Shetti (age 38), testified on 06-03-2026 regarding a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14-02-2024 at 10:15 AM on NH-66. The witness stated he did not see the accused driver, did not observe the accident itself, and did not make any statement to police. During cross-examination, the defense challenged the witness's credibility and argued that he was falsely testifying to assist the accused. The court allowed the cross-examination and the witness's statement was recorded as Exhibit 8. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary This is a civil case (CC:1767/2024) heard by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and ACJMs Court in Udupi. The witness Prashant, son of Ruvindra Shetti (age 38), testified on 06-03-2026 regarding a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14-02-2024 at 10:15 AM on NH-66. The witness stated he did not see the accused driver, did not observe the accident itself, and did not make any statement to police. During cross-examination, the defense challenged the witness's credibility and argued that he was falsely testifying to assist the accused. The court allowed the cross-examination and the witness's statement was recorded as Exhibit 8. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts