INSPECTOR OF POLICE MA vs Anandhan Alias Anandkumar — 444/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),324,506(2). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNCG060061452024
Next Hearing
17th June 2026
Filing Number
6010/2024
Filing Date
22-10-2024
Registration No
444/2024
Registration Date
22-10-2024
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpet
Judge
9-Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu
FIR Details
FIR Number
363
Police Station
MARAIMALAINAGAR
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
INSPECTOR OF POLICE MA
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Anandhan Alias Anandkumar
Hearing History
Judge: 9-Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-05-2026 | Evidence |
| 27-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 06-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 09-01-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: CC 444/2024 Witness Madhanraj (age 39) deposited testimony before Judicial Magistrate Court II, Chengalpattu on 19.09.2025 regarding an incident on 08.08.2023. The witness testified about observing a road accident and subsequently identifying a fingerprint (marked as M2) that he claimed was his own. During cross-examination, the witness stated he had no prior knowledge of the incident location, that the accused were not his relatives, and clarified the circumstances of his fingerprint identification. The deposition was recorded in Tamil, read over to the witness in court presence of the accused, and admitted as correct. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: CC 444/2024 Witness Madhanraj (age 39) deposited testimony before Judicial Magistrate Court II, Chengalpattu on 19.09.2025 regarding an incident on 08.08.2023. The witness testified about observing a road accident and subsequently identifying a fingerprint (marked as M2) that he claimed was his own. During cross-examination, the witness stated he had no prior knowledge of the incident location, that the accused were not his relatives, and clarified the circumstances of his fingerprint identification. The deposition was recorded in Tamil, read over to the witness in court presence of the accused, and admitted as correct. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts