Case against pondy cm in madras high court
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t5DzHQK5jc_1SGYpguAyjSDkuxtPEZg9/view?usp=drivesdk
![[6/20, 07:04] Sekarreporter: https://youtu.be/mlgdXPNfaik [6/20, 07:04] Sekarreporter: [6/19, 20:52] Sekarreporter: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1406271016687443969?s=1006 [6/19, 20:52] Sekarreporter: சொத்துகள் சட்டவிரோதமாக 3ஆம் நபர் பெயரில் பத்திரப் பதிவு: தடுப்பதற்கு உள்ள வசதி என்ன?- உயர் நீதிமன்றம் கேள்வி [6/20, 07:04] Sekarreporter: https://youtube.com/shorts/dYL3ezgVQJk?feature=share](https://www.sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
Follow:
- Next story Case against karnan full. Order msnj bench — tn bar council filed case for bar council senior advt s prabakaran argued for police state pp a natarajan argued
- Previous story ஆவின் நிறுவனத்தில், ஓய்வுபெற்ற ஊழியர்களுக்கு மருத்துவக் காப்பீட்டுத் திட்டத்தை அமல்படுத்துவதற்கான சாத்தியக்கூறுகளை ஆராய உத்தரவு
Recent Posts
- In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime No.39 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai District, registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC, corresponding to Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61(2) BNS, 2023, is quashed as against the petitioners. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. The interim stay already granted stands made absolute. 30.04.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Sml To 1. The Inspector of Police, DCB, Madurai District. 2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
- Mmsj rskj pudukotai new court building mmsj excellent speech video
- 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.
- Judge victoriya gowri This Court finds: (a) prosecution is not shown to rest solely on co-accused confession; (b) disputed questions of conscious possession arise; (c) prima facie materials exist requiring trial; (d) case does not fall within State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal20 categories.
- Madurai Bench* *Division Bench*: Justices N. Sathish Kumar & M. Jothiraman — *1. Specific Direction to 14 Collectors*
More
Recent Posts
- In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime No.39 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai District, registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC, corresponding to Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61(2) BNS, 2023, is quashed as against the petitioners. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. The interim stay already granted stands made absolute. 30.04.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Sml To 1. The Inspector of Police, DCB, Madurai District. 2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
- Mmsj rskj pudukotai new court building mmsj excellent speech video
- 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.
- Judge victoriya gowri This Court finds: (a) prosecution is not shown to rest solely on co-accused confession; (b) disputed questions of conscious possession arise; (c) prima facie materials exist requiring trial; (d) case does not fall within State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal20 categories.
- Madurai Bench* *Division Bench*: Justices N. Sathish Kumar & M. Jothiraman — *1. Specific Direction to 14 Collectors*