Perumal vs Karunanithi — 116/2026

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 311. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 07th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNPD110001732026

Filing Number

168/2026

Filing Date

16-Feb-2026

Registration No

116/2026

Registration Date

16-Feb-2026

Court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Gandarvakkottai

Judge

1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

07-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 04-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

240

Police Station

Gandharvakkottai

Year

2005

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 311

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Perumal

    Adv. M.Jayanthan

  2. 2.Arumugam

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Karunanithi

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    The District Court allowed a petition to permit the re-examination of a witness (PW.1) through cross-examination under Section 311 CrPC, finding that the witness's testimony remained incomplete as cross-examination was deferred on 31.01.2026 due to the petitioners' physical indisposition. The court held that denying the opportunity for cross-examination would prejudice the petitioners' case and decided that justice requires allowing the petition, subject to the petitioners paying ₹1,000 to the witness as travel allowance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  4. 04-Mar-2026

    Orders

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  5. 02-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  6. 26-Feb-2026

    Counter

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  7. 23-Feb-2026

    Counter

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  8. 16-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 16-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 116/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The District Court allowed a petition to permit the re-examination of a witness (PW.1) through cross-examination under Section 311 CrPC, finding that the witness's testimony remained incomplete as cross-examination was deferred on 31.01.2026 due to the petitioners' physical indisposition. The court held that denying the opportunity for cross-examination would prejudice the petitioners' case and decided that justice requires allowing the petition, subject to the petitioners paying ₹1,000 to the witness as travel allowance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case