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

Trial

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

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 Section 294(b), 324, 506(2)
MP/2/2025 Classification : 317 Cr.PC Section Inspector of Police Karumathampatty PS

Petitioner(s)

Inspector of Police Karumathampatty PS (Police Station)

Respondent(s)

Thennarasu

Hearing History

Judge: 31-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SULUR

22-04-2026

Trial

06-04-2026

Trial

12-03-2026

Orders

10-03-2026

Orders

23-02-2026

Orders

Interim Orders

06-04-2026
Copy of Order

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Sulur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case