The Sub Inspector of Police, Mettupalayam vs Manikandan — 2/2025
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section Sec231(2). Disposed: Uncontested--Allowed on 11th March 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNCB190005322025
Filing Number
2/2025
Filing Date
20-Aug-2025
Registration No
2/2025
Registration Date
20-Aug-2025
Court
Sub Court, Mettupalayam
Judge
2-Subordinate Judge, Mettupalayam
Decision Date
11-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Allowed
Last updated 18-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Mettupalayam
Adv. Siva Suresh.M
Respondent(s)
-
1.Manikandan
-
2.Arunkumar alias
-
3.Nagaraj
-
4.Ravikumar
-
5.Hairmannan
-
6.Malathi
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
11-Mar-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
The court granted the petitioners' request to postpone cross-examination of the first three prosecution witnesses (PW1-PW3) under Section 231(2) of the CrPC until other eye-witnesses are examined, citing the Supreme Court principle that judges may exercise discretion to deviate from standard witness examination procedures when sufficient reasons are provided. The court found that allowing the postponement would not prejudice either party and would serve the interests of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
11-Mar-2026
Disposed
Subordinate Judge, Mettupalayam
-
27-Feb-2026
Orders
Subordinate Judge, Mettupalayam
-
07-Feb-2026
Enquiry
Subordinate Judge, Mettupalayam
-
28-Jan-2026
Enquiry
Subordinate Judge, Mettupalayam
-
09-Dec-2025
Enquiry
Subordinate Judge, Mettupalayam
-
04-Nov-2025
Enquiry
Subordinate Judge, Mettupalayam
-
08-Oct-2025
Enquiry
Subordinate Judge, Mettupalayam
-
10-Sep-2025
Counter
Subordinate Judge, Mettupalayam
-
20-Aug-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
20-Aug-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 2/2025
The court granted the petitioners' request to postpone cross-examination of the first three prosecution witnesses (PW1-PW3) under Section 231(2) of the CrPC until other eye-witnesses are examined, citing the Supreme Court principle that judges may exercise discretion to deviate from standard witness examination procedures when sufficient reasons are provided. The court found that allowing the postponement would not prejudice either party and would serve the interests of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts