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.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTV150009922025
e-Filing Number
27-07-2025
Filing Number
911/2025
Filing Date
29-07-2025
Registration No
265/2025
Registration Date
25-09-2025
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodavasal
Judge
1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
25th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
279
Police Station
ERAVANCHERY P.S
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Adv. Selvam U
Respondent(s)
ROOBAN RAJ
Abinash
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Questioning
Questioning
Issue of Service
Issue of Service
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 20-05-2026 | Questioning |
| 19-05-2026 | Questioning |
| 14-05-2026 | Issue of Service |
| 05-05-2026 | Issue of Service |
Interim Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts