S DHARMALINGAM vs State by Superintendent of Police Erode — 230/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 175(3). Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 18th April 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNED040007522026
e-Filing Number
20-01-2026
Filing Number
748/2026
Filing Date
02-02-2026
Registration No
230/2026
Registration Date
02-02-2026
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Erode
Judge
11-Judicial Magistrate-I
Decision Date
18th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
S DHARMALINGAM
Adv. S.Muhammed Sheriff
Respondent(s)
State by Superintendent of Police Erode
Hearing History
Judge: 11-Judicial Magistrate-I
Disposed
Orders
Issue of Service
Issue of Service
Issue of Service
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 18-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 06-04-2026 | Orders | |
| 30-03-2026 | Issue of Service | |
| 23-03-2026 | Issue of Service | |
| 18-03-2026 | Issue of Service |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court admitted a petition under BNSS Section 175(3) filed by a social worker alleging that three individuals fraudulently deceived him by posing as social workers, convincing him to exchange ₹60,000 cash for counterfeit gold jewelry valued at ₹1,00,000 on July 3, 2025. The court found the petitioner's complaints to police yielded no action and, following the landmark *Lalitha Kumari v. Union of India* precedent, directed the Erode North Police to conduct a preliminary investigation to determine if cognizable offenses under IPC Sections 61(2), 264-267, 316, and 318 were committed, with instructions to file an FIR if sufficient evidence emerges within one month. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court admitted a petition under BNSS Section 175(3) filed by a social worker alleging that three individuals fraudulently deceived him by posing as social workers, convincing him to exchange ₹60,000 cash for counterfeit gold jewelry valued at ₹1,00,000 on July 3, 2025. The court found the petitioner's complaints to police yielded no action and, following the landmark *Lalitha Kumari v. Union of India* precedent, directed the Erode North Police to conduct a preliminary investigation to determine if cognizable offenses under IPC Sections 61(2), 264-267, 316, and 318 were committed, with instructions to file an FIR if sufficient evidence emerges within one month. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts