The SHO of Padubidri Police Station vs Kumar Kunder — 1813/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 323,324,504,506,34. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 17th April 2026.

C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES

CNR: KAUP020035802024

EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

17th April 2026

e-Filing Number

18-07-2024

Filing Number

1813/2024

Filing Date

18-07-2024

Registration No

1813/2024

Registration Date

18-07-2024

Court

PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT, UDUPI

Judge

602-I Addl Sr Civil Judge and ACJM Udupi

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 323,324,504,506,34

Petitioner(s)

The SHO (Station House Officer) of Padubidri Police Station

Adv. Sr. APP

Respondent(s)

Kumar Kunder

Shailesh

Hearing History

Judge: 602-I Addl Sr Civil Judge and ACJM Udupi

06-03-2026

EVIDENCE

23-01-2026

EVIDENCE

19-12-2025

EVIDENCE

14-11-2025

EVIDENCE

09-10-2025

EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

30-11-2024
Charge
09-10-2025
Deposition
19-12-2025
Deposition

Summary of Court Order Case No.: CC:1813/2024, CW 5 PDW:2 Court: Additional Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Udupi Date: 19-12-2025 The court completed examination of a witness (Gunapal, age 55, fisherman from Hejamadi) in a civil matter. The witness testified regarding documents and site identification, marking exhibits as material evidence. After extensive cross-examination by the prosecutor, the court found significant inconsistencies in the witness's testimony regarding his presence at the incident site, document signatures, and his involvement in the matter. The court concluded the witness examination without scheduling further cross-examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Court Order Case No.: CC:1813/2024, CW 5 PDW:2 Court: Additional Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Udupi Date: 19-12-2025 The court completed examination of a witness (Gunapal, age 55, fisherman from Hejamadi) in a civil matter. The witness testified regarding documents and site identification, marking exhibits as material evidence. After extensive cross-examination by the prosecutor, the court found significant inconsistencies in the witness's testimony regarding his presence at the incident site, document signatures, and his involvement in the matter. The court concluded the witness examination without scheduling further cross-examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT, UDUPI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case