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
Next Hearing
17th June 2026
Filing Number
65/2023
Filing Date
04-07-2022
Registration No
57/2023
Registration Date
04-07-2022
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvennainallur
Judge
1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
FIR Details
FIR Number
630
Police Station
Thiruvennainallur P.S
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Thiruvennainallur P.S.
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Abel Advocate - Ramkumar
Thamas @ Ganesan
Adv. Ramkumar
Magesh
Adv. Johnpeter. M.
Venkatesan
Adv. Karthikeyan. P.
Bonibaskar
Adv. Karthikeyan. P.
Motcharagini
Adv. Karthikeyan. P.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-05-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-05-2026 | Evidence |
| 21-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 25-02-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts