624/2024

Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed on 13th July 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNRM020008432024

Filing Number

6138/2024

Filing Date

23-Feb-2024

Registration No

624/2024

Registration Date

23-Feb-2024

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ramanathapuram

Judge

6-Judicial Magistrate No I

Decision Date

13-Jul-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Dismissed

Last updated 16-Jul-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.N. KRISHNAN

    Adv. THIRU. N. MANICKAM

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Jul-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case 624/2024 Summary: The court dismissed N. Krishnan's petition to amend the complaint and proof affidavit in a cheque bounce case. Although the court acknowledged that listing "Bank of Baroda" in the documents was a human error (the actual cheque, legal notice, and complaint body correctly stated "State Bank of India"), it refused the amendment because the case had advanced to the further evidence stage post-cross-examination. The court held the error could be explained during final arguments without formal amendment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Jul-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  4. 01-Jul-2026

    For further Proceedings

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  5. 26-May-2026

    For further Proceedings

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  6. 06-May-2026

    Orders

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  7. 28-Apr-2026

    Orders

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  8. 20-Apr-2026

    Orders

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  9. 17-Apr-2026

    Orders

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  10. 06-Apr-2026

    Orders

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  11. 30-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  12. 23-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  13. 18-Mar-2026

    For further Proceedings

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  14. 17-Mar-2026

    For further Proceedings

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  15. 26-Dec-2025

    Orders

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  16. 02-Dec-2025

    Orders

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  17. 24-Nov-2025

    Orders

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  18. 17-Nov-2025

    Orders

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  19. 11-Nov-2025

    Enquiry

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  20. 04-Nov-2025

    Enquiry

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  21. 23-Oct-2025

    Enquiry

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  22. 18-Sep-2025

    Enquiry

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  23. 28-Jul-2025

    Enquiry

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  24. 23-May-2025

    Enquiry

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  25. 02-Apr-2025

    Enquiry

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  26. 21-Mar-2025

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  27. 12-Mar-2025

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  28. 29-Jan-2025

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  29. 19-Dec-2024

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  30. 05-Nov-2024

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  31. 21-Oct-2024

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  32. 12-Aug-2024

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  33. 25-Jul-2024

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  34. 01-Jul-2024

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  35. 18-Jun-2024

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  36. 11-Jun-2024

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  37. 19-Apr-2024

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  38. 22-Mar-2024

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  39. 15-Mar-2024

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  40. 08-Mar-2024

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  41. 23-Feb-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  42. 23-Feb-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 624/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case 624/2024 Summary: The court dismissed N. Krishnan's petition to amend the complaint and proof affidavit in a cheque bounce case. Although the court acknowledged that listing "Bank of Baroda" in the documents was a human error (the actual cheque, legal notice, and complaint body correctly stated "State Bank of India"), it refused the amendment because the case had advanced to the further evidence stage post-cross-examination. The court held the error could be explained during final arguments without formal amendment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case