STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE vs ROOBAN RAJ — 265/2025

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b), 323, 506(ii). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 25th May 2026.

Case disposed

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNTV150009922025

e-Filing Number

27-07-2025

Filing Number

911/2025

Filing Date

29-Jul-2025

Registration No

265/2025

Registration Date

25-Sep-2025

Court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodavasal

Judge

1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

25-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

279

Police Station

ERAVANCHERY P.S

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 294(b), 323, 506(ii)

Petitioner(s)

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

    Adv. Selvam U

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ROOBAN RAJ

  2. 2.Abinash

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-May-2026

    Disposed

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  3. 20-May-2026

    Questioning

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  4. 19-May-2026

    Questioning

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  5. 14-May-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  6. 14-May-2026

    DepositionView PDF

    In Case C.C. No. 265/2025 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate of Kodavasal, prosecution witness Ramathas testified on May 14, 2026, but recanted his original statements, claiming he could not identify who attacked him on the incident date. The court permitted the prosecution to cross-examine its own witness under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act after the witness failed to support the state's case, revealing that he had settled the dispute with the accused outside court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  7. 14-May-2026

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  8. 05-May-2026

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  9. 28-Apr-2026

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  10. 21-Apr-2026

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  11. 16-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  12. 10-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  13. 07-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  14. 24-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  15. 13-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  16. 17-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  17. 09-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  18. 03-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  19. 02-Feb-2026

    Service Pending

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  20. 20-Jan-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  21. 20-Jan-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  22. 20-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  23. 06-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  24. 16-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  25. 02-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  26. 24-Nov-2025

    Questioning

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  27. 10-Nov-2025

    Questioning

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  28. 25-Sep-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  29. 29-Jul-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 265/2025

casestatus.in Summary

In Case C.C. No. 265/2025 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate of Kodavasal, prosecution witness Ramathas testified on May 14, 2026, but recanted his original statements, claiming he could not identify who attacked him on the incident date. The court permitted the prosecution to cross-examine its own witness under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act after the witness failed to support the state's case, revealing that he had settled the dispute with the accused outside court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case