Saidapur P S vs Chandru @ Chandar — 672/2019
Case under Sec.ipc Section Us,284,of,IPC,and,32,34,of,KE,Act. Status: EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL. Next hearing: 16th July 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KAYG030018392019
Next Hearing
16th July 2026
Filing Number
693/2019
Filing Date
23-08-2019
Registration No
672/2019
Registration Date
23-08-2019
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC YADGIR
Judge
1339-ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,YADGIR
FIR Details
FIR Number
0020
Police Station
SAIDAPUR PS
Year
2019
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Saidapur P S
Adv. A P P
Respondent(s)
Chandru @ Chandar
Hearing History
Judge: 1339-ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,YADGIR
EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL
EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL
EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL
EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL
EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL |
| 18-04-2026 | EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL |
| 13-03-2026 | EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL |
| 24-02-2026 | EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL |
| 07-01-2026 | EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL |
Interim Orders
The court order is in Kannada and deals with witness examination in case 672/2019. The witness (Khaja Vainamudin) was examined on 06-03-2025 before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court at Yadgiri. The witness could not provide clear information about the case details, the date of the incident, or police involvement. A document was shown to the witness and marked as Exhibit NIP-1 with the witness's signature as NIP-1(A). The court found the witness testimony was vague and did not clearly establish whether the accused helped commit the alleged act with false testimony. The case was adjourned; no lawyer was present for the accused, and there was no cross-examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court order is in Kannada and deals with witness examination in case 672/2019. The witness (Khaja Vainamudin) was examined on 06-03-2025 before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court at Yadgiri. The witness could not provide clear information about the case details, the date of the incident, or police involvement. A document was shown to the witness and marked as Exhibit NIP-1 with the witness's signature as NIP-1(A). The court found the witness testimony was vague and did not clearly establish whether the accused helped commit the alleged act with false testimony. The case was adjourned; no lawyer was present for the accused, and there was no cross-examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts