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
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
Petitioner(s)
Vinotha Uthayakumar
Respondent(s)
S Gunasundari
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Judicial Magistrate (FTC ML), Karaikudi
Disposed
Orders
Enquiry
Enquiry
Counter
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | Orders |
| 05-03-2026 | Enquiry |
| 12-02-2026 | Enquiry |
| 29-01-2026 | Counter |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Explore other courts