Kundapura Rural P.S. vs Subramanya Shetty — 2319/2017
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 341,323,504,365,324,rw34. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 09th April 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KAUP330034652017
Next Hearing
09th April 2026
Filing Number
2319/2017
Filing Date
08-12-2017
Registration No
2319/2017
Registration Date
08-12-2017
Court
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNDAPURA
Judge
517-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kundapura Rural P.S.
Respondent(s)
Subramanya Shetty
A-2 Gopikrishna
A-3 Rafiq alias Appli
Hearing History
Judge: 517-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 11-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 12-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 18-12-2025 | EVIDENCE |
| 25-11-2025 | EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
The case involves a civil suit (CC No. 2319/2017) before the Additional Civil Judge and PDN Court in Kundapura, dated 18-12-2025. The court examined witness testimony regarding a swelling measuring 1/2x1/2 cm on the left ear of a patient examined on 16-06-2017 at a government hospital, with documentary evidence marked as Exhibit 7 and witness signature marked as Exhibit 7(a). The court found the investigating officer's procedure of determining the swelling's measurement without properly examining Case 1 to be procedurally incorrect, and the matter was recorded as completed with the judgment read and confirmed as correct. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The case involves a civil suit (CC No. 2319/2017) before the Additional Civil Judge and PDN Court in Kundapura, dated 18-12-2025. The court examined witness testimony regarding a swelling measuring 1/2x1/2 cm on the left ear of a patient examined on 16-06-2017 at a government hospital, with documentary evidence marked as Exhibit 7 and witness signature marked as Exhibit 7(a). The court found the investigating officer's procedure of determining the swelling's measurement without properly examining Case 1 to be procedurally incorrect, and the matter was recorded as completed with the judgment read and confirmed as correct. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts