Vijakumar vs Thiruppathyrajan — 76/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 311. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 18th March 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNSV120001012026
Filing Number
101/2026
Filing Date
06-03-2026
Registration No
76/2026
Registration Date
06-03-2026
Court
Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Karaikudi
Judge
3-Judicial Magistrate (FTC ML), Karaikudi
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vijakumar
Respondent(s)
Thiruppathyrajan
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Judicial Magistrate (FTC ML), Karaikudi
Disposed
Orders
Counter
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | Orders |
| 06-03-2026 | Counter |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Crl.M.P.No.76 of 2026 Court Decision: The petition was dismissed. The Karaikudi Fast Track Court rejected accused Vijayakumar's request to reopen the complainant's evidence in a cheque dishonour case (₹5,00,000 under Negotiable Instruments Act). The court found the petition was filed belatedly and without sufficient reason, noting that Vijayakumar had been given multiple opportunities to present his defence evidence (11.12.2025, 03.01.2026, 22.01.2026, 05.02.2026) but failed to utilize them. The court ruled that since Vijayakumar himself was a party to the agreement for sale he sought to produce, he could have submitted it during his evidence phase, and that he had already cross-examined the complainant about the agreement, making reopening unnecessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Crl.M.P.No.76 of 2026 Court Decision: The petition was dismissed. The Karaikudi Fast Track Court rejected accused Vijayakumar's request to reopen the complainant's evidence in a cheque dishonour case (₹5,00,000 under Negotiable Instruments Act). The court found the petition was filed belatedly and without sufficient reason, noting that Vijayakumar had been given multiple opportunities to present his defence evidence (11.12.2025, 03.01.2026, 22.01.2026, 05.02.2026) but failed to utilize them. The court ruled that since Vijayakumar himself was a party to the agreement for sale he sought to produce, he could have submitted it during his evidence phase, and that he had already cross-examined the complainant about the agreement, making reopening unnecessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts