STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE vs AARTHI — 91/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 281,125(b). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 09-Jun-2026 this date has passed

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNTV150008272025

e-Filing Number

09-06-2025

Filing Number

748/2025

Filing Date

15-Jul-2025

Registration No

91/2025

Registration Date

15-Jul-2025

Court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodavasal

Judge

1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

187

Police Station

ERAVANCHERY P.S

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 281,125(b)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

    Adv. Selvam U

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.AARTHI

Case History

  1. 09-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 02-Jun-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  3. 22-May-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  4. 19-May-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  5. 15-May-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  6. 15-May-2026

    DepositionView PDF

    This document is a deposition of witness (P.W. 1) in Case C.C. No. 91/2025 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodavasal, dated May 15, 2026. The prosecution witness testified regarding a hit-and-run accident on December 16, 2024, where a purple scooter struck his wife while she was hanging clothes by the roadside, causing her head and shoulder injuries requiring hospitalization across three medical facilities for approximately 20 days. During cross-examination, the accused's counsel challenged the witness's credibility, highlighting inconsistencies including the 25-day delay in filing the complaint and suggesting the witness fabricated allegations to obtain compensation in a civil suit. The court recorded the witness's testimony and admitted it as correct. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  7. 15-May-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  8. 13-May-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  9. 08-May-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  10. 05-May-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  11. 07-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  12. 13-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  13. 17-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  14. 10-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  15. 20-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  16. 30-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  17. 25-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  18. 11-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  19. 28-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  20. 07-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  21. 09-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  22. 02-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  23. 19-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  24. 06-Aug-2025

    Trial

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  25. 15-Jul-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  26. 15-Jul-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 91/2025

casestatus.in Summary

This document is a deposition of witness (P.W. 1) in Case C.C. No. 91/2025 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodavasal, dated May 15, 2026. The prosecution witness testified regarding a hit-and-run accident on December 16, 2024, where a purple scooter struck his wife while she was hanging clothes by the roadside, causing her head and shoulder injuries requiring hospitalization across three medical facilities for approximately 20 days. During cross-examination, the accused's counsel challenged the witness's credibility, highlighting inconsistencies including the 25-day delay in filing the complaint and suggesting the witness fabricated allegations to obtain compensation in a civil suit. The court recorded the witness's testimony and admitted it as correct. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case