SHO - Cyber Crime Ps, Kallakurichi vs Vignesh Saravanan — 1000042/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 153,504,505(1)(b),505(1)(c),291. Status: Questioning. Next hearing: 21st July 2026.

Questioning Next hearing 21-Jul-2026 this date has passed

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNKA020041282024

e-Filing Number

28-05-2024

Filing Number

1002926/2024

Filing Date

07-Jun-2024

Registration No

1000042/2024

Registration Date

07-Jun-2024

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kallakurichi

Judge

10-Judicial Magistrate No.I

Last updated 16-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 153,504,505(1)(b),505(1)(c),291

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHO (Station House Officer) - Cyber Crime Ps (Police Station), Kallakurichi

    Adv. APP

  2. 2.Inspector Of Police

    Adv. Inspector of Police Cybercrime PS KLK

  3. 3.Inspector Of Police

    Adv. Inspector of Police Cybercrime PS KLK

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Vignesh Saravanan

Case History

  1. 21-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 26-May-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  3. 23-Apr-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  4. 30-Jan-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  5. 12-Nov-2025

    Service Pending

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  6. 02-Sep-2025

    OrdersView PDF

  7. 02-Sep-2025

    OrdersView PDF

    Case Summary: The court dismissed Vignesh Saravanan's petition seeking discharge from charges under IPC sections 153, 504, 505(1)(b), 505(1)(c), and 291 related to a YouTube video about a school girl's death at Shakti Matriculation School. The court found sufficient grounds to proceed, concluding that the accused engaged in parallel investigation violating a Madras High Court gag order, published unverified theories and conjectures that could provoke viewers and incite public disorder, and misrepresented his awareness of the court order. The petitioner must appear for questioning and charge framing proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  8. 02-Sep-2025

    Service Pending

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  9. 29-Aug-2025

    Service Pending

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  10. 26-Aug-2025

    Service Pending

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  11. 19-Aug-2025

    Service Pending

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  12. 14-Aug-2025

    Service Pending

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  13. 23-Jul-2025

    Service Pending

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  14. 14-Jul-2025

    Service Pending

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  15. 09-Jul-2025

    Service Pending

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  16. 27-Jun-2025

    Service Pending

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  17. 25-Jun-2025

    Service Pending

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  18. 24-Jun-2025

    Service Pending

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  19. 13-Jun-2025

    Service Pending

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  20. 30-May-2025

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  21. 12-May-2025

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  22. 22-Apr-2025

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  23. 06-Mar-2025

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  24. 18-Dec-2024

    Service Pending-Summon

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  25. 30-Oct-2024

    Service Pending-Summon

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  26. 23-Sep-2024

    Service Pending-Summon

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  27. 02-Aug-2024

    Service Pending-Summon

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  28. 02-Jul-2024

    Service Pending-Summon

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  29. 07-Jun-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  30. 07-Jun-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1000042/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The court dismissed Vignesh Saravanan's petition seeking discharge from charges under IPC sections 153, 504, 505(1)(b), 505(1)(c), and 291 related to a YouTube video about a school girl's death at Shakti Matriculation School. The court found sufficient grounds to proceed, concluding that the accused engaged in parallel investigation violating a Madras High Court gag order, published unverified theories and conjectures that could provoke viewers and incite public disorder, and misrepresented his awareness of the court order. The petitioner must appear for questioning and charge framing proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case