Vijakumar vs Thiruppathyrajan — 75/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 91. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNSV120001002026

Filing Number

100/2026

Filing Date

06-Mar-2026

Registration No

75/2026

Registration Date

06-Mar-2026

Court

Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Karaikudi

Judge

3-Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 29-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 91

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Vijakumar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Thiruppathyrajan

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    IA orderView PDF

    Case Summary: Crl.M.P.No.75 of 2026 The Fast Track Court at Karaikudi dismissed Vijayakumar's petition seeking to compel the complainant to produce a sale agreement dated 05.01.2021 in a cheque dishonour case (₹5,00,000). The court found the petition was filed belatedly and without sufficient reason to delay proceedings, noting that the accused had been given multiple opportunities to present evidence on four separate dates but failed to utilize them, and had already cross-examined the complainant regarding the agreement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 06-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 75/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Crl.M.P.No.75 of 2026 The Fast Track Court at Karaikudi dismissed Vijayakumar's petition seeking to compel the complainant to produce a sale agreement dated 05.01.2021 in a cheque dishonour case (₹5,00,000). The court found the petition was filed belatedly and without sufficient reason to delay proceedings, noting that the accused had been given multiple opportunities to present evidence on four separate dates but failed to utilize them, and had already cross-examined the complainant regarding the agreement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case