B. Babin vs Kottar P.S — 942/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 348. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 05th May 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNMD010011102026

Filing Number

866/2026

Filing Date

12-Feb-2026

Registration No

942/2026

Registration Date

27-Feb-2026

Court

Principal District Court, Madurai

Judge

7-Spl. Judge for Communal Clash Cases

Decision Date

05-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 23-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

873

Police Station

Kottar P.S.

Year

2021

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 348

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.B. Babin

    Adv. JEYA ARON RAJA J

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Kottar P.S

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-May-2026

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

    Case Summary The Madurai District and Sessions Court dismissed the accused's petition to recall prosecution witness PW3 for cross-examination. The court found that the accused's claim of not having counsel at the time of PW3's examination was false, as records showed counsel was engaged for previous witnesses and cross-examined them promptly. The court concluded the petition was filed with malafide intention to delay trial by suppressing material facts, and therefore dismissed it as devoid of merit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-May-2026

    Disposed

    Spl. Judge for Communal Clash Cases

  4. 22-Apr-2026

    Enquiry

    Spl. Judge for Communal Clash Cases

  5. 01-Apr-2026

    Enquiry

    Spl. Judge for Communal Clash Cases

  6. 26-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    Spl. Judge for Communal Clash Cases

  7. 12-Mar-2026

    Appearance

    Spl. Judge for Communal Clash Cases

  8. 27-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 12-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 942/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The Madurai District and Sessions Court dismissed the accused's petition to recall prosecution witness PW3 for cross-examination. The court found that the accused's claim of not having counsel at the time of PW3's examination was false, as records showed counsel was engaged for previous witnesses and cross-examined them promptly. The court concluded the petition was filed with malafide intention to delay trial by suppressing material facts, and therefore dismissed it as devoid of merit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case