Parimalam vs Karthick — 86/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 311. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 12th May 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNSV120001102026

Filing Number

110/2026

Filing Date

12-Mar-2026

Registration No

86/2026

Registration Date

12-Mar-2026

Court

Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Karaikudi

Judge

3-Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi

Decision Date

12-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 28-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 311

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Parimalam

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Karthick

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-May-2026

    IA orderView PDF

    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.

  3. 12-May-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi

  4. 07-May-2026

    Enquiry

    Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi

  5. 28-Apr-2026

    Enquiry

    Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi

  6. 16-Apr-2026

    Enquiry

    Judicial Magistrate (Ftc ML), Karaikudi

  7. 12-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 12-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 86/2026

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case