Thiruvennainallur P.S. vs Abel Advocate - Ramkumar — 57/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 147, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 354, 506(i). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNVP340000652023
Filing Number
65/2023
Filing Date
04-Jul-2022
Registration No
57/2023
Registration Date
04-Jul-2022
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvennainallur
Judge
1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
Last updated 14-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
630
Police Station
Thiruvennainallur P.S
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Thiruvennainallur P.S.
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.Abel Advocate - Ramkumar
-
2.Thamas @ Ganesan
Adv. Ramkumar
-
3.Magesh
Adv. Johnpeter. M.
-
4.Venkatesan
Adv. Karthikeyan. P.
-
5.Bonibaskar
Adv. Karthikeyan. P.
-
6.Motcharagini
Adv. Karthikeyan. P.
Case History
-
17-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
27-May-2026
Evidence
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
13-May-2026
Evidence
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
21-Apr-2026
Evidence
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
16-Mar-2026
Evidence
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
25-Feb-2026
Evidence
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
11-Feb-2026
Evidence
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
28-Jan-2026
Evidence
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
12-Jan-2026
Evidence
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
10-Dec-2025
Evidence
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
26-Nov-2025
Evidence
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
05-Nov-2025
Service Pending-Summon
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
15-Oct-2025
Service Pending-Summon
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
24-Sep-2025
DepositionView PDF
This is a witness deposition document in Case C.C. No. 57/2023 before the District Court, Thiruvannamalai. Two witnesses testified on September 24, 2025, describing an alleged assault by the respondents (Abel, Thomas/Thamas, and Magesh) approximately 4-5 years prior. The witnesses alleged they were attacked with fists and weapons while returning home in a vehicle after work. Defendants 5 and 6 were absent; their counsel filed an application under CrPC Section 317 which was allowed. No cross-examination was conducted by respondents' counsel despite opportunity provided. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
24-Sep-2025
Part Heard
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
20-Aug-2025
Service Pending-Summon
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
28-May-2025
Evidence
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
12-Mar-2025
Evidence
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
21-Jan-2025
Evidence
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
31-Dec-2024
Framing of Charges
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
19-Dec-2024
Framing of Charges
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
19-Nov-2024
Framing of Charges
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
22-Oct-2024
Framing of Charges
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
01-Oct-2024
Framing of Charges
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
05-Sep-2024
Framing of Charges
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
13-Aug-2024
Framing of Charges
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
23-Jul-2024
Framing of Charges
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
27-Jun-2024
Service Pending
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
20-Jun-2024
Service Pending
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
15-Jun-2024
Service Pending
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
04-Jun-2024
Service Pending
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
29-May-2024
Service Pending
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
28-Mar-2024
Service Pending
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
-
05-Jan-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
04-Jul-2022
Case filed
Registration No. 57/2023
This is a witness deposition document in Case C.C. No. 57/2023 before the District Court, Thiruvannamalai. Two witnesses testified on September 24, 2025, describing an alleged assault by the respondents (Abel, Thomas/Thamas, and Magesh) approximately 4-5 years prior. The witnesses alleged they were attacked with fists and weapons while returning home in a vehicle after work. Defendants 5 and 6 were absent; their counsel filed an application under CrPC Section 317 which was allowed. No cross-examination was conducted by respondents' counsel despite opportunity provided. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts