CHANDIRAN vs BASKARAN Advocate - RAVIKUMAR K — 88/2016

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 200CrPC465,463rw107. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 09th April 2026.

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNRP040004752016

Evidence

Next Hearing

09th April 2026

Filing Number

4282/2016

Filing Date

07-10-2016

Registration No

88/2016

Registration Date

07-10-2016

Court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Ranipet

Judge

5-District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 200CrPC465,463rw107
Mp/1/2025 Classification : 317 Cr.pc Section CHANDIRANBASKARAN

Petitioner(s)

CHANDIRAN

Adv. SELVARAJ A G

Respondent(s)

BASKARAN Advocate - RAVIKUMAR K

Hearing History

Judge: 5-District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet

05-03-2026

Evidence

29-01-2026

Evidence

29-12-2025

Evidence

04-12-2025

Issues

06-11-2025

Issues

Interim Orders

08-04-2025
Copy of Oral Evidence/Deposition

Case Summary Case: CC.NO. 88/2016, DW-1 | Court: District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet | Date: 08.04.2025 Outcome: Cross-examination of the defendant (DW-1) continued. The court examined discrepancies in survey numbers (126/2 vs 126/2B vs 126/2C) in property documents and found contradictions in the defendant's testimony regarding document authenticity and property ownership claims. The court concluded the defendant's explanation regarding forged documents prepared to cover up public road encroachment was not credible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Case: CC.NO. 88/2016, DW-1 | Court: District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet | Date: 08.04.2025 Outcome: Cross-examination of the defendant (DW-1) continued. The court examined discrepancies in survey numbers (126/2 vs 126/2B vs 126/2C) in property documents and found contradictions in the defendant's testimony regarding document authenticity and property ownership claims. The court concluded the defendant's explanation regarding forged documents prepared to cover up public road encroachment was not credible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Ranipet All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case