Venugopal vs Muralidhara Prabhu Advocate - SURAJ KRISHNA — 1280/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 210, 223 and 175(3). Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 09th March 2026.
Crl.MP - CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETN.
CNR: KLER700009322025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1280/2025
Filing Date
30-07-2025
Registration No
1280/2025
Registration Date
11-08-2025
Court
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court ,Mattancherry
Judge
1-Judicial First Class Magistrate
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Venugopal
Adv. LEEMA ROSY D
Respondent(s)
Muralidhara Prabhu Advocate - SURAJ KRISHNA
Jollly
Jovett
Rajkumar Pai
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial First Class Magistrate
Disposed
Call on
For hearing in CMP
Call on
For hearing in CMP
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 04-03-2026 | Call on | |
| 24-02-2026 | For hearing in CMP | |
| 13-02-2026 | Call on | |
| 27-01-2026 | For hearing in CMP |
Final Orders / Judgements
Order
Interim Orders
Summary The Mattancherry Judicial First Class Magistrate dismissed an accused's petition seeking a hearing under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), holding that accused persons have no right to be heard during the preliminary inquiry stage before a complaint is forwarded for FIR registration. The court distinguished Section 175(3) from Section 223 BNSS, noting that the right to hearing applies only when cognizance is taken, not during the earlier investigative inquiry phase; notice to the accused is required only if they are public servants accused of acts during official duties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Mattancherry Judicial First Class Magistrate dismissed an accused's petition seeking a hearing under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), holding that accused persons have no right to be heard during the preliminary inquiry stage before a complaint is forwarded for FIR registration. The court distinguished Section 175(3) from Section 223 BNSS, noting that the right to hearing applies only when cognizance is taken, not during the earlier investigative inquiry phase; notice to the accused is required only if they are public servants accused of acts during official duties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts