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

Case disposed

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

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 Section 296B342323364A502

Petitioner(s)

GOPINATH S

Adv. RATHISH KUMAR RAVI

Respondent(s)

INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Hearing History

Judge: 9-Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu

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

18-03-2026
Copy of Order

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpet All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case