Arakandanallur P.S. vs Elumalai — 253/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b), 354C, 506(1). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNVP340003352024
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
263/2024
Filing Date
07-09-2021
Registration No
253/2024
Registration Date
07-09-2021
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvennainallur
Judge
1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Arakandanallur P.S.
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Elumalai
Paramasivam
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 04-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 18-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 04-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 21-01-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
This document records the deposition of a witness (Judicial Form No. 53) in Criminal Case No. 253/2024 before the District Court at T.V. Nallur on January 21, 2026. The witness, a 48-year-old laborer named Arumugan, testified that he signed a site plan approximately 4 years ago near a temple in Mambuundi when police were documenting a case-related sketch, and confirmed the signature in the visual record was his. During cross-examination, the witness acknowledged signing the document at the spot when the investigator requested it, clarifying inconsistencies in his testimony about whether he was called to the police station. The court examined the witness's credibility regarding the circumstances and timing of the signature. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This document records the deposition of a witness (Judicial Form No. 53) in Criminal Case No. 253/2024 before the District Court at T.V. Nallur on January 21, 2026. The witness, a 48-year-old laborer named Arumugan, testified that he signed a site plan approximately 4 years ago near a temple in Mambuundi when police were documenting a case-related sketch, and confirmed the signature in the visual record was his. During cross-examination, the witness acknowledged signing the document at the spot when the investigator requested it, clarifying inconsistencies in his testimony about whether he was called to the police station. The court examined the witness's credibility regarding the circumstances and timing of the signature. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts