State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Sirkali Police Station vs Thindivanam @ Palsamy — 280/2021
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 457,380. Disposed: Uncontested--CLOSED on 17th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNMY080073512021
Filing Number
7351/2021
Filing Date
27-Dec-2021
Registration No
280/2021
Registration Date
27-Dec-2021
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Sirkali
Judge
1-Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
17-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--CLOSED
Last updated 18-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
184
Police Station
Sirkali Police Station
Year
2009
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Sirkali Police Station
Adv. A.P.P.
Respondent(s)
-
1.Thindivanam @ Palsamy
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
17-Mar-2026
Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF
The Madras High Court's Dedicated Bench quashed criminal case Cr.No.184/2009 (registered under IPC Sections 457 and 380 for theft) through a suo motu order, finding that pursuing the trial would violate the accused's right to speedy trial given the 17-year delay since registration, the complainant's unwillingness to proceed, recovery and return of stolen property, and the impossibility of executing the pending non-bailable warrant. The court determined that a meaningful trial was unlikely and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Mar-2026
Disposed
Judicial Magistrate
-
11-Mar-2026
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
Judicial Magistrate
-
10-Mar-2026
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate
-
09-Mar-2026
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate
-
27-Feb-2026
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate
-
25-Feb-2026
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate
-
24-Feb-2026
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate
-
20-Feb-2026
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate
-
19-Feb-2026
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate
-
18-Feb-2026
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate
-
17-Feb-2026
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate
-
16-Feb-2026
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate
-
29-Jan-2026
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate
-
15-Dec-2025
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate
-
27-Nov-2025
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate
-
04-Nov-2025
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
Judicial Magistrate
-
30-Sep-2025
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
14-Aug-2025
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
05-Jun-2025
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
22-Apr-2025
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
06-Feb-2025
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
04-Dec-2024
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
27-Sep-2024
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
29-Aug-2024
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
14-Jun-2024
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
14-May-2024
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
29-Apr-2024
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
19-Feb-2024
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
22-Dec-2023
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
15-Nov-2023
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
20-Sep-2023
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
20-Jul-2023
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
08-Jun-2023
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
28-Apr-2023
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
03-Mar-2023
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
31-Jan-2023
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
29-Dec-2022
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
31-Oct-2022
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
30-Sep-2022
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
14-Sep-2022
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
27-Jul-2022
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
26-May-2022
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
06-Apr-2022
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
02-Mar-2022
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
02-Feb-2022
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
27-Dec-2021
Case filed
Registration No. 280/2021
The Madras High Court's Dedicated Bench quashed criminal case Cr.No.184/2009 (registered under IPC Sections 457 and 380 for theft) through a suo motu order, finding that pursuing the trial would violate the accused's right to speedy trial given the 17-year delay since registration, the complainant's unwillingness to proceed, recovery and return of stolen property, and the impossibility of executing the pending non-bailable warrant. The court determined that a meaningful trial was unlikely and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts