Inspector of police vs Maheshwaran and 5 others — 302/2021

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 395. Status: Service Pending-Summon. Next hearing: 24th April 2026.

SC - Sessions Case

CNR: TNMD230009042021

Service Pending-Summon

Next Hearing

24th April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

302/2021

Filing Date

12-08-2021

Registration No

302/2021

Registration Date

12-08-2021

Court

Sub Court, Melur

Judge

2-Sub Judge, Melur

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Section 395
MP/1/2026 Classification : 317 Cr.PC Section Inspector of police
MP/2/2026 Classification : 317 Cr.PC Section Maheshwaran and 5 othersInspector of police

Petitioner(s)

Inspector of police

Respondent(s)

Maheshwaran and 5 others

Kaviraja

Karthickraja

Nagaraj

Pandikannan

Senthil kumar

Hearing History

Judge: 2-Sub Judge, Melur

08-04-2026

Service Pending-Summon

24-03-2026

Service Pending-Summon

12-03-2026

Service Pending-Summon

09-03-2026

Service Pending-Summon

19-02-2026

Service Pending-Summon

Interim Orders

12-03-2026
Copy of Oral Evidence/Deposition

The Assistant Sessions Judge at Melur dismissed the petition (S.C No.302/2021) filed by Shanmugandyan, finding that the investigation was conducted improperly and without following proper procedure. The court noted that the FIR (No.472/2019 under IPC 395) was registered based on a complaint filed on 09.08.2019, but the investigating officer failed to identify the accused persons by name in the First Information Report, which constitutes a procedural defect. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Assistant Sessions Judge at Melur dismissed the petition (S.C No.302/2021) filed by Shanmugandyan, finding that the investigation was conducted improperly and without following proper procedure. The court noted that the FIR (No.472/2019 under IPC 395) was registered based on a complaint filed on 09.08.2019, but the investigating officer failed to identify the accused persons by name in the First Information Report, which constitutes a procedural defect. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Sub Court, Melur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case