Inspector of Police Karumathampatty PS vs Thennarasu — 214/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b), 324, 506(2). Status: Trial. Next hearing: 27th May 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNCB180009902025
Next Hearing
27th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
988/2025
Filing Date
03-04-2025
Registration No
214/2025
Registration Date
03-04-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Sulur
Judge
31-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SULUR
FIR Details
FIR Number
145
Police Station
Karumathampatty Police Station
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Inspector of Police Karumathampatty PS (Police Station)
Respondent(s)
Thennarasu
Hearing History
Judge: 31-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SULUR
Trial
Trial
Orders
Orders
Orders
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 22-04-2026 | Trial | |
| 06-04-2026 | Trial | |
| 12-03-2026 | Orders | |
| 10-03-2026 | Orders | |
| 23-02-2026 | Orders |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: The Judicial Magistrate Court of Sulur dismissed the prosecution's petition to add Bharath as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC. The court found that Bharath's name was absent from the original complaint, medical records, and investigation report, and that his inclusion was based solely on the complainant's statement during chief examination, which appeared to be an afterthought. Following the Supreme Court precedent in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, the court held that strong and cogent evidence is required to invoke Section 319 CrPC, which was lacking in this case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: The Judicial Magistrate Court of Sulur dismissed the prosecution's petition to add Bharath as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC. The court found that Bharath's name was absent from the original complaint, medical records, and investigation report, and that his inclusion was based solely on the complainant's statement during chief examination, which appeared to be an afterthought. Following the Supreme Court precedent in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, the court held that strong and cogent evidence is required to invoke Section 319 CrPC, which was lacking in this case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts