Inspector of Police, P.C.Patty P.S vs Ramalingam and 1 other Advocate - s.k.murugan — 500206/2016
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 448,294(b),355,323,506(i). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 10th June 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTH020008042016
Next Hearing
10th June 2026
Filing Number
500218/2016
Filing Date
05-08-2016
Registration No
500206/2016
Registration Date
06-08-2016
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Theni
Judge
5-Judicial Magistrate
FIR Details
FIR Number
259
Police Station
Palanichettipatty P.S.
Year
2016
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Inspector of Police, P.C.Patty P.S
Adv. app
Respondent(s)
Ramalingam and 1 other Advocate - s.k.murugan
Jeyalakshmi @ Jeya
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Judicial Magistrate
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-05-2026 | Evidence |
| 08-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 18-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 30-12-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
This case (206/2016) involves a family dispute where an 80-year-old complainant alleged assault by two respondents (nephew and his wife) approximately 8 years prior, claiming they beat him and threatened him. The complainant filed an FIR with police. During examination, testimonies were recorded regarding the alleged incident, property disputes, and the complainant's claim of injuries sustained. The court examined evidence including the complainant's fingerprint on the FIR statement. The respondents contested the allegations during cross-examination, disputing the complainant's account of events and claiming no actual assault occurred. The court's final order upheld that while a property dispute exists between parties, the prosecution failed to prove the assault charges conclusively. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This case (206/2016) involves a family dispute where an 80-year-old complainant alleged assault by two respondents (nephew and his wife) approximately 8 years prior, claiming they beat him and threatened him. The complainant filed an FIR with police. During examination, testimonies were recorded regarding the alleged incident, property disputes, and the complainant's claim of injuries sustained. The court examined evidence including the complainant's fingerprint on the FIR statement. The respondents contested the allegations during cross-examination, disputing the complainant's account of events and claiming no actual assault occurred. The court's final order upheld that while a property dispute exists between parties, the prosecution failed to prove the assault charges conclusively. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts