Lakshmanan vs Karaikudi North PS — 129/2026
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 406,420. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 18th March 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNSV190002462026
Filing Number
246/2026
Filing Date
11-02-2026
Registration No
129/2026
Registration Date
11-02-2026
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi
Judge
5-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
FIR Details
FIR Number
223
Police Station
Karaikudi North Police Station
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Lakshmanan
Respondent(s)
Karaikudi North PS (Police Station)
Karthick
Adaikappan
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
Disposed
Orders
Enquiry
Enquiry
Enquiry
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Orders |
| 12-03-2026 | Enquiry |
| 09-03-2026 | Enquiry |
| 04-03-2026 | Enquiry |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Crl.M.P.No.129 of 2026 Lakshmanan, the complainant in a fraud case involving accused Karthik and Adaikappan (who operated LK Skill Institute), sought interim custody of Rs. 4,31,000 allegedly paid to the accused. The court dismissed the petition, finding that Lakshmanan's own original complaint stated he paid only Rs. 3,80,000, contradicting his current claim of Rs. 4,31,000. Additionally, with 28 identified victims in the case and Rs. 50,71,000 defrauded overall, the court held that Lakshmanan failed to demonstrate exclusive entitlement to the seized amount without satisfactory proof during an ongoing investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Crl.M.P.No.129 of 2026 Lakshmanan, the complainant in a fraud case involving accused Karthik and Adaikappan (who operated LK Skill Institute), sought interim custody of Rs. 4,31,000 allegedly paid to the accused. The court dismissed the petition, finding that Lakshmanan's own original complaint stated he paid only Rs. 3,80,000, contradicting his current claim of Rs. 4,31,000. Additionally, with 28 identified victims in the case and Rs. 50,71,000 defrauded overall, the court held that Lakshmanan failed to demonstrate exclusive entitlement to the seized amount without satisfactory proof during an ongoing investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts