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

Case disposed

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

Indian Penal Code Section 406,420

Petitioner(s)

Lakshmanan

Respondent(s)

Karaikudi North PS (Police Station)

Karthick

Adaikappan

Hearing History

Judge: 5-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi

18-03-2026

Disposed

16-03-2026

Orders

12-03-2026

Enquiry

09-03-2026

Enquiry

04-03-2026

Enquiry

Final Orders / Judgements

18-03-2026
IA order

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case