Palanivel vs Kanjamalai Maniyakarar and 4 othes — 216/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 352. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 10th June 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNNM140007112025
Filing Number
710/2025
Filing Date
28-Jul-2025
Registration No
216/2025
Registration Date
28-Jul-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Sendamangalam
Judge
28-Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
Decision Date
10-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Last updated 16-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Palanivel
Respondent(s)
-
1.Kanjamalai Maniyakarar and 4 othes
-
2.Madeshwaran Maniyakarar
-
3.Subramani Maniyakarar
-
4.Jeyaraman Maniyakarar
-
5.Manokaran
-
6.State Government Sub Inspector of Police, Sendamangalam
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Jun-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Case Summary: CMP 216/2025 - Palanivel v. Kanjamalai Maniyakarar & Others The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the petitioner Palanivel's petition filed under BNSS Section 175(3) seeking directions to register an FIR against five respondents. The court found that the petitioner failed to comply with procedural requirements: he did not file a certificate proving he had properly forwarded his complaint to the police commissioner as mandated by BNSS Section 173(4), nor did he provide evidence of the original complaint's date or acknowledgment. The court also noted the petitioner had exaggerated allegations in his petition beyond what appeared in his original police complaint, and certain serious crimes mentioned in the petition were entirely absent from the original complaint, rendering the petition defective and unworthy of acceptance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Jun-2026
Disposed
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
06-Jun-2026
Orders
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
05-Jun-2026
Orders
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
29-May-2026
Orders
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
26-May-2026
Orders
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
15-May-2026
Orders
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
12-May-2026
Orders
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
11-May-2026
Orders
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
27-Apr-2026
Orders
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
09-Apr-2026
Orders
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
06-Apr-2026
Orders
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
18-Mar-2026
Orders
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
07-Mar-2026
Orders
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
25-Feb-2026
Orders
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
18-Feb-2026
Orders
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
11-Feb-2026
Orders
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
07-Feb-2026
Orders
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
02-Feb-2026
Counter
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
21-Jan-2026
Counter
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
07-Jan-2026
Counter
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
29-Dec-2025
Counter
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
12-Dec-2025
Counter
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
24-Nov-2025
Counter
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
01-Nov-2025
Counter
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
22-Oct-2025
Counter
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
03-Oct-2025
Counter
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
22-Sep-2025
Counter
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
10-Sep-2025
Counter
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
28-Aug-2025
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
28-Jul-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
28-Jul-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 216/2025
Case Summary: CMP 216/2025 - Palanivel v. Kanjamalai Maniyakarar & Others The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the petitioner Palanivel's petition filed under BNSS Section 175(3) seeking directions to register an FIR against five respondents. The court found that the petitioner failed to comply with procedural requirements: he did not file a certificate proving he had properly forwarded his complaint to the police commissioner as mandated by BNSS Section 173(4), nor did he provide evidence of the original complaint's date or acknowledgment. The court also noted the petitioner had exaggerated allegations in his petition beyond what appeared in his original police complaint, and certain serious crimes mentioned in the petition were entirely absent from the original complaint, rendering the petition defective and unworthy of acceptance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts