GOPINATH S vs INSPECTOR OF POLICE — 428/2026
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 296B342323364A502. Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed on 18th March 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNCG060013682026
e-Filing Number
25-02-2026
Filing Number
1344/2026
Filing Date
26-02-2026
Registration No
428/2026
Registration Date
27-02-2026
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpet
Judge
9-Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Dismissed
FIR Details
FIR Number
705
Police Station
CHENGALPATTU TALUK
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
GOPINATH S
Adv. RATHISH KUMAR RAVI
Respondent(s)
INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Hearing History
Judge: 9-Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu
Disposed
Issue of Service
Issue of Service
Issue of Service
Issue of Service
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 17-03-2026 | Issue of Service |
| 16-03-2026 | Issue of Service |
| 11-03-2026 | Issue of Service |
| 09-03-2026 | Issue of Service |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 428/2026 - GOPINATH S v. INSPECTOR OF POLICE The court dismissed Gopinath's petition seeking return of his seized Ambassador car (TN-09-M-9009) held as evidence in FIR 705/2023. The vehicle was allegedly used in kidnapping for ransom under IPC sections 294(b), 342, 323, 364(A), and 506(2). The Judicial Magistrate rejected the petition, ruling that returning the car—despite petitioner's ownership—posed a risk of further criminal use, and retention was necessary in the interest of justice given the grave nature of the offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 428/2026 - GOPINATH S v. INSPECTOR OF POLICE The court dismissed Gopinath's petition seeking return of his seized Ambassador car (TN-09-M-9009) held as evidence in FIR 705/2023. The vehicle was allegedly used in kidnapping for ransom under IPC sections 294(b), 342, 323, 364(A), and 506(2). The Judicial Magistrate rejected the petition, ruling that returning the car—despite petitioner's ownership—posed a risk of further criminal use, and retention was necessary in the interest of justice given the grave nature of the offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts