Court stays proceedings on FIR against film producer Gnanavel Raja Justice J Nisha Banu passed the interim order on a petition by the producer to quash the FIR. The case was adjourned to January 2021.
Court stays proceedings on FIR against film producer Gnanavel Raja
- Justice J Nisha Banu passed the interim order on a petition by the producer to quash the FIR. The case was adjourned to January 2021.
Published: 27th November 2020 11:43 PM | Last Updated: 27th November 2020 11:43 PM | A+A A-
Tamil film producer KE Gnanavel Raja (File photo | EPS)
MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court ordered an interim stay on all further proceedings on the FIR registered against film producer KE Gnanavel Raja in a chit fund fraud case.
Justice J Nisha Banu passed the interim order on a petition by the producer to quash the FIR. The case was adjourned to January 2021.
The FIR was registered following a complaint filed by one Tulasi Manikandan that three persons — Neethimani, Anand and Menaka cheated nearly `3 crore from public. Raja was booked as an accused in the case based on the Neethimani’s statement that he paid the money collected from the public to Raja.
However, Raja contended that he sold the theatrical rights of his movie Mahamuni to Neethimani for around Rs 6.25 crore and Neethimani paid Rs 2 crore of the amount as part of the agreement.
He alleged that Neethimani was trying to implicate him in the case to avoid paying the remaining amount. He also said that he is no way connected with the fraud committed by Neethimani and the police cannot register FIR against everyone who has had financial transactions with Neethimani despite the transactions being unrelated to the crime
![[6/14, 08:11] Sekarreporter1: [6/14, 08:10] Advt K. JAGANNATHAN: https://www.dtnext.in/News/City/2015/12/17095721/Take-priests-as-per-Agama-rules-Supreme-Court.vpf [6/14, 08:11] Advt K. JAGANNATHAN: It is small press report from seshamal judgment. Post this sir [6/14, 08:12] Sekarreporter1: Supreme Court’s Constitution bench in the Seshammal case judgement held that archakas’ appointment was a “secular function” abolishing “next-in-line of succession” appointments. But the court also made it clear that appointments, even if non-hereditary, should conform to the temple’s current practice, meaning that archakas from a specific “sect, denomination or group”, have to be appointed. This practice had to be followed.](https://sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)