SI of Police, Nathampatti P.S vs Gurusamy Advocate - R. Rajendran — 135/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279,304(A). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 09th July 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNVR250004102024
Filing Number
168/2024
Filing Date
23-Aug-2022
Registration No
135/2024
Registration Date
23-Aug-2022
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Watrap
Judge
1-District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
Last updated 01-Jul-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
35
Police Station
Nathampatti P.S.
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SI of Police, Nathampatti P.S
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.Gurusamy Advocate - R. Rajendran
Case History
-
09-Jul-2026
Next hearingPending
-
16-Jun-2026
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
05-Jun-2026
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
15-May-2026
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
21-Apr-2026
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
16-Apr-2026
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
09-Apr-2026
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
02-Apr-2026
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
24-Mar-2026
Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF
Summary of Case 135/2024 On 24.03.2026, the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate of Watrap recorded the deposition of Prosecution Witness 4 (Chinnaswamy) in Criminal Case 135/2024. The witness testified regarding an inspection conducted on 17.03.2022 at Nathampatti, where he and another person signed an inspection memo (Exhibit A.Sa.A.3). During cross-examination, the witness's credibility was challenged regarding where and under what circumstances he signed the document. The witness maintained his account while defending against suggestions that he falsely testified or was coerced by police. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
24-Mar-2026
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
06-Mar-2026
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
26-Feb-2026
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
12-Feb-2026
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
22-Jan-2026
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
18-Dec-2025
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
20-Nov-2025
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
06-Nov-2025
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
16-Oct-2025
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
25-Sep-2025
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
11-Sep-2025
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
12-Aug-2025
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
22-Jul-2025
Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF
-
22-Jul-2025
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
08-Jul-2025
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
12-Jun-2025
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
20-May-2025
Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF
-
20-May-2025
Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF
-
20-May-2025
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
02-May-2025
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
06-Mar-2025
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
09-Jan-2025
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
27-Nov-2024
Evidence
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
03-Oct-2024
Trial
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
10-Sep-2024
Trial
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
23-Aug-2024
Trial
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
-
10-Aug-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
23-Aug-2022
Case filed
Registration No. 135/2024
Summary of Case 135/2024 On 24.03.2026, the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate of Watrap recorded the deposition of Prosecution Witness 4 (Chinnaswamy) in Criminal Case 135/2024. The witness testified regarding an inspection conducted on 17.03.2022 at Nathampatti, where he and another person signed an inspection memo (Exhibit A.Sa.A.3). During cross-examination, the witness's credibility was challenged regarding where and under what circumstances he signed the document. The witness maintained his account while defending against suggestions that he falsely testified or was coerced by police. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts