Maraimalai Nagar Police Station vs xxxx — 45/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 316(2),318(4),296(b),351(2). Disposed: Uncontested--CLOSED on 20th April 2026.

Case disposed

RCS - Referred Charge Sheet

CNR: TNCG060051402025

e-Filing Number

07-07-2025

Filing Number

5109/2025

Filing Date

21-Aug-2025

Registration No

45/2025

Registration Date

21-Aug-2025

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpet

Judge

9-Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu

Decision Date

20-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--CLOSED

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

630

Police Station

MARAIMALAINAGAR

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 316(2),318(4),296(b),351(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Maraimalai Nagar Police Station

    Adv. INSPECTOR OF POLICE MARAIMALAINAGAR CRIME

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.xxxx

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 20-Apr-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    Case 45/2025 Summary The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the protest petition filed by Rani against a "Mistake of Fact" closure report in a case involving alleged assault and jewelry disputes with pawnshop operator Mangalram. The court found no credible evidence of the alleged attack—witnesses stated they saw nothing—and noted Rani produced no receipts proving loan repayment or jewel redemption, characterizing the complaint as exaggerated with imaginary incidents. The court accepted the investigation officer's closure report and determined the underlying dispute over jewelry transactions was a civil matter requiring a proper civil forum, not criminal prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 20-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu

  4. 01-Apr-2026

    Enquiry

    Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu

  5. 18-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu

  6. 16-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu

  7. 24-Feb-2026

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu

  8. 18-Feb-2026

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu

  9. 28-Jan-2026

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu

  10. 09-Jan-2026

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu

  11. 26-Dec-2025

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu

  12. 18-Dec-2025

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu

  13. 11-Dec-2025

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu

  14. 05-Dec-2025

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu

  15. 21-Nov-2025

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu

  16. 14-Nov-2025

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu

  17. 23-Oct-2025

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu

  18. 07-Oct-2025

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu

  19. 06-Oct-2025

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu

  20. 03-Oct-2025

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu

  21. 25-Sep-2025

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu

  22. 10-Sep-2025

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu

  23. 22-Aug-2025

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu

  24. 21-Aug-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  25. 21-Aug-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 45/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case 45/2025 Summary The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the protest petition filed by Rani against a "Mistake of Fact" closure report in a case involving alleged assault and jewelry disputes with pawnshop operator Mangalram. The court found no credible evidence of the alleged attack—witnesses stated they saw nothing—and noted Rani produced no receipts proving loan repayment or jewel redemption, characterizing the complaint as exaggerated with imaginary incidents. The court accepted the investigation officer's closure report and determined the underlying dispute over jewelry transactions was a civil matter requiring a proper civil forum, not criminal prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case