Arivuselvi vs Sathuramesh — 2563/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 358. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 23rd March 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNSV190049092025
Filing Number
4909/2025
Filing Date
08-Oct-2025
Registration No
2563/2025
Registration Date
08-Oct-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi
Judge
5-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
Decision Date
23-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Last updated 29-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Arivuselvi
Adv. RAJARAM.S
Respondent(s)
-
1.Sathuramesh
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
23-Mar-2026
IA orderView PDF
Case Summary: Arivuselvi v. Sathu Ramesh (2563/2025) The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 319 CrPC seeking to summon a second accused. The petitioner alleged that an Inspector of Police fraudulently obtained her signature on a fabricated document portraying her father as mentally unstable, and sought to add another officer as an accused based solely on a suggestion made during witness cross-examination. The court held that mere cross-examination suggestions, without independent corroborating evidence, handwriting expert opinion, or documentary proof of involvement, fall short of the "strong and cogent evidence" threshold required under Section 319 CrPC. The petition was dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
23-Mar-2026
Disposed
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
12-Mar-2026
Orders
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
17-Feb-2026
Enquiry
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
12-Feb-2026
Enquiry
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
02-Feb-2026
Enquiry
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
06-Jan-2026
Enquiry
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
06-Dec-2025
Counter
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
11-Nov-2025
Counter
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
08-Oct-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
08-Oct-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 2563/2025
Case Summary: Arivuselvi v. Sathu Ramesh (2563/2025) The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 319 CrPC seeking to summon a second accused. The petitioner alleged that an Inspector of Police fraudulently obtained her signature on a fabricated document portraying her father as mentally unstable, and sought to add another officer as an accused based solely on a suggestion made during witness cross-examination. The court held that mere cross-examination suggestions, without independent corroborating evidence, handwriting expert opinion, or documentary proof of involvement, fall short of the "strong and cogent evidence" threshold required under Section 319 CrPC. The petition was dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts