Parimalam vs Karthick — 86/2026

Case Summary: Crl.M.P.No.86/2026 - Parimalam v. Karthick The Fast Track Court, Karaikudi allowed the complainant Parimalam's petition under Section 348 BNSS to produce additional evidence. The accused Karthick had claimed during his defense that he was on duty on the date of the alleged transaction and not with the complainant. The court found the additional evidence (an associate employee of the accused as witness) relevant and necessary to substantiate the complainant's claims, and directed the complainant to produce this evidence at the next hearing without further adjournments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.