Inspector of Police, Kangayam Police Station, Tiruppur vs Nataraj — 244/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 302,201,120B,342,34. Status: Trial. Next hearing: 02nd June 2026.
SC - Sessions Case
CNR: TNTI030007102023
Next Hearing
02nd June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
71/2023
Filing Date
08-09-2023
Registration No
244/2023
Registration Date
08-09-2023
Court
Additional District and Sessions Court, Dharapuram
Judge
1-III Additional District and Sessions Judge
FIR Details
FIR Number
177
Police Station
Kangayam Police Station
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Inspector of Police, Kangayam Police Station, Tiruppur
Adv. Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
Nataraj
Saravanan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-III Additional District and Sessions Judge
Trial
Trial
Service Pending
Await Reports
Await Reports
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-04-2026 | Trial | |
| 09-03-2026 | Trial | |
| 17-02-2026 | Service Pending | |
| 09-01-2026 | Await Reports | |
| 02-12-2025 | Await Reports |
Interim Orders
Summary: The petition filed under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code by accused Natraj and Saravanan seeking call records from Bharti Airtel Limited for two mobile numbers (9003949765 and 8760111000) for the period 20.04.2023 to 24.06.2023 has been allowed. The court found that the accused should be given sufficient opportunity to set up their defense and that merely obtaining the documents for court inspection would not reveal investigative secrets, thus permitting the investigation officer to submit the collected information to the court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The petition filed under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code by accused Natraj and Saravanan seeking call records from Bharti Airtel Limited for two mobile numbers (9003949765 and 8760111000) for the period 20.04.2023 to 24.06.2023 has been allowed. The court found that the accused should be given sufficient opportunity to set up their defense and that merely obtaining the documents for court inspection would not reveal investigative secrets, thus permitting the investigation officer to submit the collected information to the court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts