P Ramayammal vs V Sundaram — 2814/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 175(3). Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed on 12th March 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNDG030057802025
e-Filing Number
21-07-2025
Filing Number
5745/2025
Filing Date
23-Aug-2025
Registration No
2814/2025
Registration Date
27-Sep-2025
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Dindugul
Judge
9-Judicial Magistrate No II
Decision Date
12-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Dismissed
Last updated 23-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.P Ramayammal
Adv. BALASUBRAMANI M
Respondent(s)
-
1.V Sundaram
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
12-Mar-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
The Judicial Magistrate Court at Dindigul dismissed the petition filed by P. Ramayammal against V. Sundaram, finding no cognizable offense of cheating or forgery. The court held that the dispute was merely a civil money transaction where the petitioner had voluntarily pledged her ATM card, cheques, and bond as security for a debt, and the petitioner's own admission undermined her claim of forgery. The court ruled that any dispute regarding the legality of the debt should be resolved in an appropriate civil forum. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
12-Mar-2026
Disposed
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
23-Feb-2026
Orders
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
09-Feb-2026
Await Reports
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
02-Feb-2026
Await Reports
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
05-Jan-2026
Await Reports
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
15-Dec-2025
Await Reports
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
01-Dec-2025
Await Reports
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
21-Nov-2025
Await Reports
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
03-Nov-2025
Await Reports
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
13-Oct-2025
Admission
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
26-Sep-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
23-Aug-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 2814/2025
The Judicial Magistrate Court at Dindigul dismissed the petition filed by P. Ramayammal against V. Sundaram, finding no cognizable offense of cheating or forgery. The court held that the dispute was merely a civil money transaction where the petitioner had voluntarily pledged her ATM card, cheques, and bond as security for a debt, and the petitioner's own admission undermined her claim of forgery. The court ruled that any dispute regarding the legality of the debt should be resolved in an appropriate civil forum. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts