Gopalakrisnan vs M3 Inspector of police — 253/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 497,503. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 26th May 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNTR370005932026
Filing Number
544/2026
Filing Date
18-May-2026
Registration No
253/2026
Registration Date
18-May-2026
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Madhavaram
Judge
1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Madhavaram
Decision Date
26-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Last updated 16-Jul-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
133
Police Station
M3 Puzhal Police Station
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Gopalakrisnan
Adv. S.K. Rajeshkumar
Respondent(s)
-
1.M3 Inspector of police
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
26-May-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
Case Summary: Gopalakrishnan v. M3 Inspector of Police (253/2026) The District Munsif Court granted Gopalakrishnan interim custody of seized iron properties, finding him to be the rightful owner. The court allowed the petition under Section 499 r/w 505 BNSS, reasoning that prolonged exposure to weather would cause deterioration and rust, relying on Supreme Court precedent that interim custody serves multiple purposes including preventing property damage and reducing court administrative burden. The custody was conditional upon execution of Rs. 70,000 bond with surety, panchanama documentation, photographs from all four sides, and undertaking not to alter or sell the property without court permission. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
26-May-2026
Disposed
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Madhavaram
-
22-May-2026
Orders
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Madhavaram
-
21-May-2026
Await Reports
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Madhavaram
-
18-May-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
18-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 253/2026
Case Summary: Gopalakrishnan v. M3 Inspector of Police (253/2026) The District Munsif Court granted Gopalakrishnan interim custody of seized iron properties, finding him to be the rightful owner. The court allowed the petition under Section 499 r/w 505 BNSS, reasoning that prolonged exposure to weather would cause deterioration and rust, relying on Supreme Court precedent that interim custody serves multiple purposes including preventing property damage and reducing court administrative burden. The custody was conditional upon execution of Rs. 70,000 bond with surety, panchanama documentation, photographs from all four sides, and undertaking not to alter or sell the property without court permission. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts