Devaraj vs PUBLIC PROSECUTOR — 4/2026
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 438 R/W 442. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 16th March 2026.
CRLR - Criminal Revision Petition
CNR: TNCB010004772026
e-Filing Number
19-01-2026
Filing Number
335/2026
Filing Date
19-Jan-2026
Registration No
4/2026
Registration Date
22-Jan-2026
Court
Principal District Court, Coimbatore
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Decision Date
16-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Last updated 26-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Devaraj
Adv. NANDHINI R
Respondent(s)
-
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Mar-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
-
16-Mar-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
Summary The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by Devaraj (car owner) seeking return of a seized Tata Safari vehicle. The court found that the petitioner had previously filed an identical petition (CMP No.9401/2025) which was dismissed, but failed to disclose this fact in the second petition (CMP No.11668/2025), thereby approaching the court without "clean hands." Additionally, the court noted a cloud over the vehicle's ownership and concerns about its connection to ongoing criminal investigations. The petition was dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000 payable to the District Legal Services Authority. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal District Judge
-
10-Mar-2026
Orders
Principal District Judge
-
04-Mar-2026
Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
25-Feb-2026
Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
23-Feb-2026
Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
18-Feb-2026
Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
16-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
19-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 4/2026
Summary The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by Devaraj (car owner) seeking return of a seized Tata Safari vehicle. The court found that the petitioner had previously filed an identical petition (CMP No.9401/2025) which was dismissed, but failed to disclose this fact in the second petition (CMP No.11668/2025), thereby approaching the court without "clean hands." Additionally, the court noted a cloud over the vehicle's ownership and concerns about its connection to ongoing criminal investigations. The petition was dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000 payable to the District Legal Services Authority. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts