Gingee P.S vs Murugan — 120/2022
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),506(ii),326. Status: Questioning. Next hearing: 21st April 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNVP180013212022
Next Hearing
21st April 2026
Filing Number
1321/2022
Filing Date
01-11-2022
Registration No
120/2022
Registration Date
01-11-2022
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Gingee
Judge
1-Judicial Magistrate
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Gingee P.S
Adv. Mr.Tr.Sakthivel., APP.Gr.II
Respondent(s)
Murugan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate
Questioning
Questioning
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 06-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 11-02-2026 | Part Heard |
| 28-01-2026 | Part Heard |
| 29-12-2025 | Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Summary: In this criminal case (CC.No.120/2022) before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Gingee, the court recorded the deposition of witness PW-7 (Anandan) on 06.03.2026 under the Indian Evidence Act. The case involves charges under IPC Sections 294(b), 326, and 506(ii) related to an alleged assault on 01.07.2022, where the victim sustained what was certified as a "grievous injury" by the medical officer. During cross-examination, the investigating officer acknowledged significant gaps in the investigation, including failure to verify jurisdictional details of the lake where the incident occurred, failure to seize the alleged weapon, and inconsistencies in the victim's statement regarding the nature of injuries. The court found the investigation deficient in multiple crucial aspects of evidence collection and corroboration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In this criminal case (CC.No.120/2022) before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Gingee, the court recorded the deposition of witness PW-7 (Anandan) on 06.03.2026 under the Indian Evidence Act. The case involves charges under IPC Sections 294(b), 326, and 506(ii) related to an alleged assault on 01.07.2022, where the victim sustained what was certified as a "grievous injury" by the medical officer. During cross-examination, the investigating officer acknowledged significant gaps in the investigation, including failure to verify jurisdictional details of the lake where the incident occurred, failure to seize the alleged weapon, and inconsistencies in the victim's statement regarding the nature of injuries. The court found the investigation deficient in multiple crucial aspects of evidence collection and corroboration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts