Iyappan vs Sugumaran — 367/2026

Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 26th May 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNRM020011142026

Filing Number

1036/2026

Filing Date

10-Apr-2026

Registration No

367/2026

Registration Date

10-Apr-2026

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ramanathapuram

Judge

7-Judicial Magistrate No II

Decision Date

26-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 16-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

0

Police Station

KENIKARAI P.S

Year

0

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Iyappan

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Sugumaran

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 26-May-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: Iyappan v. Sugumaran (Crl.M.P No. 367/2026) The court dismissed Iyappan's petition seeking to recall the witness (PW1) for cross-examination under Section 311 CrPC. The court found that the petition was filed to delay proceedings, as the accused had been given approximately 61 opportunities over 10 years to cross-examine the witness but failed to do so, with no reasonable justification provided for the delay. The court held that permitting repeated recall of witnesses causes case pendency and discourages witness participation, and that allowing such dilatory tactics would undermine judicial efficiency and fairness. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 26-May-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate No II

  4. 21-May-2026

    Enquiry

    Judicial Magistrate No II

  5. 08-May-2026

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate No II

  6. 24-Apr-2026

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate No II

  7. 17-Apr-2026

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate No II

  8. 10-Apr-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 10-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 367/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Iyappan v. Sugumaran (Crl.M.P No. 367/2026) The court dismissed Iyappan's petition seeking to recall the witness (PW1) for cross-examination under Section 311 CrPC. The court found that the petition was filed to delay proceedings, as the accused had been given approximately 61 opportunities over 10 years to cross-examine the witness but failed to do so, with no reasonable justification provided for the delay. The court held that permitting repeated recall of witnesses causes case pendency and discourages witness participation, and that allowing such dilatory tactics would undermine judicial efficiency and fairness. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case