Suresh (Haridoss) vs DCB villupuram Ps — 984/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 250. Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed on 23rd March 2026.

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNVP100016112025

Case disposed

Filing Number

1601/2025

Filing Date

07-08-2025

Registration No

984/2025

Registration Date

07-08-2025

Court

Judicial Magistrate No. I Court, Tindivanam

Judge

1-Judicial Magistrate I

Decision Date

23rd March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Dismissed

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 250

Petitioner(s)

Suresh (Haridoss)

Respondent(s)

DCB villupuram Ps (Police Station)

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate I

23-03-2026

Disposed

16-03-2026

Orders

11-03-2026

Enquiry

02-03-2026

Enquiry

13-02-2026

Enquiry

Final Orders / Judgements

23-03-2026
Fair Order

Case Summary: Suresh @ Haridoss v. DCB Villupuram PS (984/2025) The court dismissed the petitioner Suresh's application for discharge from criminal proceedings involving alleged fraud and criminal conspiracy. The petitioner was accused of participating in a scheme where his brother obtained a ₹8.5 lakh loan using a property deed as collateral, then fraudulently sold the property using forged documents after falsely claiming the original deed was lost. Although the petitioner claimed no knowledge of the offense and was not a signatory to the initial promissory note, the court found prima facie evidence of conspiracy under IPC Sections 120(b) and 420, noting his signature on the subsequent fraudulent sale deed and witness statements placing him at the initial loan negotiation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Suresh @ Haridoss v. DCB Villupuram PS (984/2025) The court dismissed the petitioner Suresh's application for discharge from criminal proceedings involving alleged fraud and criminal conspiracy. The petitioner was accused of participating in a scheme where his brother obtained a ₹8.5 lakh loan using a property deed as collateral, then fraudulently sold the property using forged documents after falsely claiming the original deed was lost. Although the petitioner claimed no knowledge of the offense and was not a signatory to the initial promissory note, the court found prima facie evidence of conspiracy under IPC Sections 120(b) and 420, noting his signature on the subsequent fraudulent sale deed and witness statements placing him at the initial loan negotiation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Judicial Magistrate No. I Court, Tindivanam All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case