AWPS Tirumangalam vs Sureshkumar and 4 others — 101/2018
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),506(1),406,494,498(A). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 24th April 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNMD140008882018
Next Hearing
24th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
862/2018
Filing Date
15-11-2018
Registration No
101/2018
Registration Date
15-11-2018
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirumangalam
Judge
1-Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam
FIR Details
FIR Number
71
Police Station
AWPS-THIRUMANGALAM
Year
2017
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
AWPS Tirumangalam
Adv. The APP
Respondent(s)
Sureshkumar and 4 others
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 08-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 03-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 16-02-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: In case CC.101/2018 before the Judicial Magistrate, Tirumangalam, the court recorded the deposition of a female police investigator (witness) in a criminal matter involving charges under IPC sections 294(B), 506(1), 406, 498(A), and 494. The witness testified regarding the investigation conducted by her predecessor, examination of witnesses including Sangareswari and others, and cross-examination by the accused (defendants 1-4). The court found insufficient evidence against accused 1 and 5 regarding their residence location and rejected portions of the prosecution's case, noting investigative gaps and inconsistencies in witness statements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In case CC.101/2018 before the Judicial Magistrate, Tirumangalam, the court recorded the deposition of a female police investigator (witness) in a criminal matter involving charges under IPC sections 294(B), 506(1), 406, 498(A), and 494. The witness testified regarding the investigation conducted by her predecessor, examination of witnesses including Sangareswari and others, and cross-examination by the accused (defendants 1-4). The court found insufficient evidence against accused 1 and 5 regarding their residence location and rejected portions of the prosecution's case, noting investigative gaps and inconsistencies in witness statements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts