Inspector of Police vs NATCHIMUTHU — 22/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(B), 323, 324, 506(2). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNDG180004602024
Next Hearing
23rd June 2026
e-Filing Number
03-01-2024
Filing Number
456/2024
Filing Date
05-02-2024
Registration No
22/2024
Registration Date
06-02-2024
Court
District Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Court, Athoor
Judge
1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Athoor
FIR Details
FIR Number
133
Police Station
Chinnalapatti P.S.
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Inspector of Police
Adv. Inspector of police Chinnalapatti police station
Respondent(s)
NATCHIMUTHU
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Athoor
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-05-2026 | Evidence |
| 11-05-2026 | Evidence |
| 09-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 06-02-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
This document records the deposition of witness PW.4 (Aruna) in case CC.No. 22/2024 before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Athoor, dated 11.05.2026. The witness testified that the defendant (Nachimuththu, age 65) attacked her brother with a knife, causing a head injury that required 3-4 days of hospital treatment, but the defendant's cross-examination challenged the credibility of her account by suggesting the incident did not occur as described and questioning various details of her testimony. The court's observations note inconsistencies in the witness's statement regarding hospitalization and the defendant's physical capability to have committed the alleged act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This document records the deposition of witness PW.4 (Aruna) in case CC.No. 22/2024 before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Athoor, dated 11.05.2026. The witness testified that the defendant (Nachimuththu, age 65) attacked her brother with a knife, causing a head injury that required 3-4 days of hospital treatment, but the defendant's cross-examination challenged the credibility of her account by suggesting the incident did not occur as described and questioning various details of her testimony. The court's observations note inconsistencies in the witness's statement regarding hospitalization and the defendant's physical capability to have committed the alleged act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts