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
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
Petitioner(s)
Suresh (Haridoss)
Respondent(s)
DCB villupuram Ps (Police Station)
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate I
Disposed
Orders
Enquiry
Enquiry
Enquiry
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Orders |
| 11-03-2026 | Enquiry |
| 02-03-2026 | Enquiry |
| 13-02-2026 | Enquiry |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Explore other courts