Vinotha Uthayakumar vs S Gunasundari — 277/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 315. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 23rd March 2026.

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNSV120005542025

Case disposed

Filing Number

552/2025

Filing Date

13-11-2025

Registration No

277/2025

Registration Date

13-11-2025

Court

Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Karaikudi

Judge

3-Judicial Magistrate (FTC ML), Karaikudi

Decision Date

23rd March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 315

Petitioner(s)

Vinotha Uthayakumar

Respondent(s)

S Gunasundari

Hearing History

Judge: 3-Judicial Magistrate (FTC ML), Karaikudi

23-03-2026

Disposed

12-03-2026

Orders

05-03-2026

Enquiry

12-02-2026

Enquiry

29-01-2026

Counter

Final Orders / Judgements

23-03-2026
IA order

Case Summary: Vinotha Uthayakumar v. S Gunasundhari (Crl.M.P. 277/2025) The Fast Track Court at Karaikudi partly allowed the accused's petition under Section 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court permitted Vinotha (accused in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case involving a dishonored cheque of Rs. 4,68,000) to examine herself as a witness, but rejected her request to examine the complainant's bank officials. The court found the petitioner failed to establish valid reasons or relevance for calling bank officials and dismissed this prayer, holding that mere complainant consent cannot substitute for demonstrated necessity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Vinotha Uthayakumar v. S Gunasundhari (Crl.M.P. 277/2025) The Fast Track Court at Karaikudi partly allowed the accused's petition under Section 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court permitted Vinotha (accused in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case involving a dishonored cheque of Rs. 4,68,000) to examine herself as a witness, but rejected her request to examine the complainant's bank officials. The court found the petitioner failed to establish valid reasons or relevance for calling bank officials and dismissed this prayer, holding that mere complainant consent cannot substitute for demonstrated necessity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Karaikudi All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case