M Prabu vs G Rajeshkumar — 2924/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section condone. Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed on 10th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNSA010056612025

Filing Number

3744/2025

Filing Date

22-Oct-2025

Registration No

2924/2025

Registration Date

22-Oct-2025

Court

Principal District Court, Salem

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Decision Date

10-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Dismissed

Last updated 09-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section condone

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M Prabu

    Adv. SENTHILKUMAR. M. P.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.G Rajeshkumar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Summary: The Principal Sessions Judge, Salem dismissed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2924/2025 for default on March 10, 2026. The petitioner M. Prabu had filed the petition under Section 154 CrPC seeking to condone an 8-day delay in filing a criminal appeal against the Judicial Magistrate's order, but the petition was dismissed because the petitioner failed to appear, his counsel provided no representation, and the process fee remained unpaid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge

  4. 16-Feb-2026

    Issue of Process

    Principal District Judge

  5. 21-Jan-2026

    Issue of Service

    Principal District Judge

  6. 11-Dec-2025

    Await Notice

    Principal District Judge

  7. 12-Nov-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 22-Oct-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 2924/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Principal Sessions Judge, Salem dismissed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2924/2025 for default on March 10, 2026. The petitioner M. Prabu had filed the petition under Section 154 CrPC seeking to condone an 8-day delay in filing a criminal appeal against the Judicial Magistrate's order, but the petition was dismissed because the petitioner failed to appear, his counsel provided no representation, and the process fee remained unpaid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case