Judge Victoria Gowri refused to quash because: prosecution has more than just co-accused statement, conscious possession is disputed fact for trial, prima facie case exists, and it doesn’t meet SC’s _Bhajan Lal_ criteria for quashing. So case must go to trial.

*Justice L. Victoria Gowri | Madras HC – Madurai Bench*
*Order refusing to quash proceedings* | Crl.O.P.(MD) context

—

*What the Court Held*
When deciding a petition to quash criminal case, the judge laid down 4 findings:

*(a) Prosecution not solely on co-accused confession*
Co-accused confession can’t be _sole_ basis for conviction – SC in _Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, 1964_. But here, prosecution has _other material_ besides co-accused statement. So quash denied.

*(b) Disputed questions of conscious possession arise*
“Conscious possession” = you knew you had the contraband/item. This is a _factual dispute_. High Court won’t decide disputed facts under Sec 482 CrPC. That’s for trial court after evidence.

*(c) Prima facie materials exist requiring trial*
“Prima facie” = on first look, there’s enough material to go to trial. Court found sufficient evidence beyond mere suspicion.

*(d) Case does not fall within _Bhajan Lal_ categories*
_State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992_ gives 7 categories where FIR/proceedings can be quashed:
1. FIR doesn’t disclose offence
2. Allegations + evidence don’t make out case
3. Barred by law
4. Allegations absurd/inherently improbable
5. Malafide/grudge
6. Express legal bar
7. No offence made out even if allegations taken at face value

Court said: This case doesn’t fit any. So no quashing.

*Legal Context*

*1. Co-accused confession rule*: A confession of one accused isn’t substantive evidence against another. It can only “lend assurance” if other evidence already exists. Justice Gowri found _other evidence exists_, so case survives.

*2. Conscious possession*: Common issue in NDPS, Arms Act, explosives cases. Whether accused _knew_ he had the item is a question of fact → must be decided at trial, not in 482 petition.

*3. Bhajan Lal test*: High standard for quashing. If prima facie case + disputed facts exist, HC won’t interfere.

—

*Bottom Line*: Judge Victoria Gowri refused to quash because: prosecution has more than just co-accused statement, conscious possession is disputed fact for trial, prima facie case exists, and it doesn’t meet SC’s _Bhajan Lal_ criteria for quashing. So case must go to trial.

This is the same judge who passed the Ambedkar curriculum order & POCSO misuse order on 30.04.2026.