Sempatti PS vs Nagaraj — 356/2022
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),323,506(ii). Disposed: Uncontested--Transfer Cases to Other Court on 08th April 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNDG030043572022
Filing Number
4403/2022
Filing Date
16-03-2022
Registration No
356/2022
Registration Date
16-03-2022
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Dindugul
Judge
3-Chief Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
08th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Transfer Cases to Other Court
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sempatti PS (Police Station)
Adv. PP.
Respondent(s)
Nagaraj
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Chief Judicial Magistrate
Await Orders
Disposed
Await Orders
Service Pending-Summon
Service Pending-Summon
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-04-2026 | Await Orders |
| 08-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 30-03-2026 | Await Orders |
| 12-03-2026 | Service Pending-Summon |
| 26-02-2026 | Service Pending-Summon |
Interim Orders
Summary The Tirunelveli District Court dismissed a petition seeking to add four new accused persons (Balpandi, Vishnu, Sriram, and Jayachandran) to Case No. 356/2022. The court found that while the three witnesses (victims) testified about the assault, their testimonies contained significant inconsistencies regarding timing, location, and details of who committed specific acts. Additionally, the court determined that since the alleged offenses occurred on communal grounds and involved caste-based abuse under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter—such cases must be transferred to a competent court with authority over SC/ST Act violations. The petition was therefore rejected. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Tirunelveli District Court dismissed a petition seeking to add four new accused persons (Balpandi, Vishnu, Sriram, and Jayachandran) to Case No. 356/2022. The court found that while the three witnesses (victims) testified about the assault, their testimonies contained significant inconsistencies regarding timing, location, and details of who committed specific acts. Additionally, the court determined that since the alleged offenses occurred on communal grounds and involved caste-based abuse under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter—such cases must be transferred to a competent court with authority over SC/ST Act violations. The petition was therefore rejected. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts