SI of Police Pallathur PS vs Boominathan — 596/2022
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 392. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 19th May 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNSV190019652022
Next Hearing
19th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
983/2022
Filing Date
06-03-2017
Registration No
596/2022
Registration Date
06-03-2017
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi
Judge
5-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
FIR Details
FIR Number
108
Police Station
Pallathur Police Station
Year
2015
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SI of Police Pallathur PS (Police Station)
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Boominathan
Chelladurai
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-05-2026 | Evidence | |
| 02-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 17-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 19-02-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: This is a witness deposition (P.W.8) recorded on 21.01.2026 in Criminal Case No. 596/2022 before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi. The witness, a retired special investigation officer, testified regarding a gold chain theft complaint (FIR No. 108/2015 under IPC Section 392) that occurred on 08.07.2015, where two unidentified motorcycle-borne suspects allegedly robbed a gold chain valued at ₹70,000. The witness confirmed filing the first information report based on the complainant's statement, and during cross-examination, discrepancies in the complaint regarding the description of the stolen item were clarified and acknowledged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: This is a witness deposition (P.W.8) recorded on 21.01.2026 in Criminal Case No. 596/2022 before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi. The witness, a retired special investigation officer, testified regarding a gold chain theft complaint (FIR No. 108/2015 under IPC Section 392) that occurred on 08.07.2015, where two unidentified motorcycle-borne suspects allegedly robbed a gold chain valued at ₹70,000. The witness confirmed filing the first information report based on the complainant's statement, and during cross-examination, discrepancies in the complaint regarding the description of the stolen item were clarified and acknowledged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts