Murugan conference MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI W.P.CRL.(MD)Nos.110 and 185 of 2025 and WPMPCRL(MD)Nos.26 and 47 of 2025 in WPCRL(MD)No.110 of 2025 Hindu Munnani Rep.by its State Secretary
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P.CRL.(MD)Nos.110 and 185 of 2025 and WPMPCRL(MD)Nos.26 and 47 of 2025
in WPCRL(MD)No.110 of 2025
Hindu Munnani
Rep.by its State Secretary
S.Muthukumar,
Rajagopalan Illam,
Backside to Amma Mandapam,
Sadhasiva Nagar,
Madurai-625020.
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep.by its Secretary,
Home Department,
St.George Fort, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police, Alagarkoil main road, Madurai-2.
3.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anna Nagar Circle, Madurai-625 020.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Anna Nagar (L&O) Police Station,
… Petitioner
South Gate, Madurai-1.
… Respondents
The Writ Petition Criminal filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the third respondent herein in C.No. 65/AC ANR/Camp/MC/2025, dated 04.06.2025 refusing permission and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant permission for set up and making the temporary miniatures of six abodes of Lord Muruga and to conduct poojas as mentioned in the petitioner’s representation dated 29.05.2025 from
10.06.2025 to 22.06.2025.
For Petitioner
: Mr.G.Karthikeyan,
Senior Counsel, for Mr.M.Karthikeya Venkitachalapathy
For Respondents
: Mr.R.Baskaran,
Additional Advocate General, Assisted by,
Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor.
For Impleading
: Mr.T.Lajapathiy Roy,
petitioners
in WP(MD)No.185 of 2025
M.Arasupandi,
Zonal Secretary,
Hindu Munnani
Rajagopalan Illam,
Back to Amma Mandapam,
Sadhasiva Nagar, Vandiyur,
Senior Counsel for
M/s Roy and Roy Associates in WPMPCRL(MD)No.26 of 2025
:Mr.S.Vanchinathan
in WPMPCRL(MD)No.27 of 2025
Madurai-625020.
Petitioner
Vs
1.The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City Police, Madurai-2.
3.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anna Nagar Circle, Madurai-625 020.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Anna Nagar Police Station,
Madurai District. … Respondents
The Writ Petition Criminal filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in C.No.65-1/ACANR/Camp/MC/2025 dated 12.06.2025 and quash the condition number 7, 16, 44, 45, 46 and 49 therein as unsustainable in law.
For Petitioner
: Mr.G.Karthikeyan,
Senior Counsel, for Mr.M.Karthikeya Venkitachalapathy
For Respondents
: Mr.R.Baskaran,
Additional Advocate General, Assisted by,
Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar,
Additional Public Prosecutor.
ORDER
The petitioner organisation with an object of gathering the devotees of
Lord Murugan has proposed to conduct an event in the name of Muruga Bakthargalin Aanmeega Maanadu on 22.06.2025 from 3.00pm to 8.00pm.
They got permission from a private land owner near Vandiyur toll plaza,
Pondikovil ring road and has also applied for necessary permission from the 3rd and 4th respondents. For the success of the conference they intend to establish miniatures of all the six abodes of Lord Murugan (Aarupadai veedu) in the venue and sought for a separate permission to conduct the poojas by gathering devotees and for distributing prasadam from 10.06.2025 to 22.06.2025 for two hours in the morning 10.00 am to 12.00 pm and in the evening from 5.00 pm to 7.00 pm.
2.In the main application submitted by the petitioner’s organisation seeking for permission to conduct the conference on 22.06.2025 certain queries have been made by the 3rd respondent police and the request of the petitioner for conducting pooja for the miniatures of Lord Murugan in the venue from 10.06.2025 to 22.06.2025 was denied by the 3rd respondent by his order in C.No.65/AC/ANR/Camp/MC/2025 – 04.06.2025 on the following grounds:
I.The main application for the event on 22.06.2025 is pending for consideration and the queries posed by the respondent police have not been answered and that the organisation has not obtained any separate permission from the land owner for converting the venue as a temporary worship place.
II.A separate permission has not been obtained from the District Administration and from the Corporation for establishing a temporary temple structure of Aarupadai Veedu.
III.There are residence around the venue and the proposed pooja may cause nuisance to the neighbours and may lead to law and order problem.
IV.Certain schools are functioning in and around the venue, permitting loud speakers would certainly cause nuisance to the students, who are studying in the schools.
V.The venue is near four way road and this event may cause traffic congestion and also lead to law and order problems.
3.Challenging this order dated 04.06.2025 of the Assistant Commissioner, rejecting the request of the petitioner for the permission for the event on account of the main event on 22.06.2025, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in WPCRL(MD)No.110 of 2025. In this writ petition it was represented that the request for the main event / conference on 22.06.2025 is still under consideration of the respondent police since the petitioner has not answered the queries made by them. Since the request of the petitioner for the main event has not been considered by the respondent police, this Court adjourned the writ petition in WPCRL(MD)No.110 of 2025 to 13.06.2025 and directed the respondent police to take a decision on the petitioner’s application for the event on 22.06.2025 on or before 12.06.2025.
4.The 3rd respondent police has taken a decision on 12.06.2025 to permit the petitioner to conduct the conference on 22.06.2025, however with certain conditions. 52 conditions have been imposed on the petitioner. Aggrieved over condition Nos.7, 16, 44, 45, 46 and 49, the petitioner has filed another writ petition in WPCRL(MD)No.185 of 2025.
5.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner made a mention about the other writ petition filed as against the order of the respondent police dated 12.06.2025 and therefore, this Court has directed the Registry to list the writ
petition WPCRL(MD)No.185 of 2025 along with WPCRL(MD)No.110 of
2025.
6.Mr.Karthikeyan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s organisation is working for the upliftment of the Hindus, protection of Hindu dharma, temples, tradition and to create awareness among the Hindus about their religion and rights. The petitioner’s organisation has decided to arrange for a gathering of devotees of Lord Murugan in the name of Muruga Bakthargalin Aanmeega Manadu on
22.06.2025 from 3.00 pm to 8.00 pm in Amma Thidal near Vandiyur Toll Plaza, Pandikoil ring road. On the day of conference, a joint prayer of devotees would be conducted by chanting Kandhar Sasti Kavasam and Thirupugazh in one voice for the well being of the universe. For the success of the conference, they have made arrangements for installing miniatures of six abodes of Lord Muruga from 10.06.2025 to 22.06.2025 and also inclined to perform pooja for two hours in the morning and evening with distribution of prasadam. It is only to facilitate the devotees of Lord Murugan to join in a common place and to chant Kandhar Sasti Kavasam and Thirupugazh for the welfare of the entire universe. The Sthalapuranam and special features of all six abodes will be displayed in the event and also to be explained to participants of the conference.
7.The learned Senior counsel further submits that the place of gathering is a private land, where already several conferences and public meetings have been conducted. The land owner has also given consent for conducting the programmes. They have also made arrangements for generating electricity, stage arrangements and parking place for the vehicles. According to him, the devotees of Lord Murugan, from all over the world are likely to participate in the conference. Apart from them, monks, pontiffs and other spiritual personalities are also participating.
8.The law and order and safety of large assemblies is well within the ambit of Police and therefore, a request was made by the petitioner’s organisation on 11.05.2025 for the gathering proposed on 22.06.2025. The respondent police have raised certain queries on 04.06.2025 and again raised queries on 09.06.2025. Finally they have now granted permission with 52 conditions for this proposed event on 22.06.2025. However the request of the petitioner’s organisation for the preliminary event of installing miniatures of Arupadai Veedu and for performing poojas for these miniatures prior to the event has been denied as stated supra.
9.The learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised certain objections on the conditions imposed by the 3rd respondent in his order dated 12.06.2025 that condition Nos 7, 16, 44, 45, 46 and 49 are impracticable in nature and untenable. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the conference would not only be attended by the members of organisation alone but also the devotees of Lord Murugan would also attend the conference. It would be difficult for them to get pass as expected by the respondent police. With regard to condition No.16, the learned Senior Counsel submits that there cannot be any restriction in the name of vehicle and condition No.44 is referring to the irrelevant provision to the issue. Similarly reference about provision under Section 431 of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act is also irrelevant for the issue. With regard to condition No.49, the learned Senior Counsel submits that they are inclined to restrict the usage of drones, however sought permission to use at least two drones for the purpose of covering the entire conference.
10.For the miniatures of Aarupadai Veedu, the learned Senior Counsel submits that it is purely a temporary one, to make the devotees to feel that they have visited all the Aarupadai Veedu. It is also believed that installing of these miniatures and conducting poojas would make the conference a success. There is no agama as objected by the respondent police for establishing the temporary miniatures, which is a commonly prevailing practice in this State. He has pointed out similar such events that were conducted by other organisations by installing statues. Events have been conducted with Lord Venkateshwara depicting all forms of Thirumal in 108 Dhivya Desams, Jothiralingam of Lord Shiva and also Shakti Peedams of
Amman. Therefore, according to him installation of miniatures of Lord Muruga is not a new one and similar such installations of deities have already been made. He has also pointed out a similar event conducted by the HR and CE Department at Palani and submitted that the HR and CE Department during Muthamizh Murugan Manaadu has set up similar miniatures of all the six abodes of Lord Murugan. He further submits that these are temporary structures and would be removed immediately after the conference is over. The deities and participants of the conference may have the pleasure of viewing all the six forms of Lord Murugan and this may be the highlight of the conference.
11.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent police submits that apart from imposing the condition on usage of loud speakers, the respondent police are also having responsibility of maintaining law and order. Therefore they have imposed the above conditions. These conditions according to the learned Additional Advocate General have been imposed to conduct the conference without any untoward incident. Regarding the establishment of miniatures, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that this type of practice is not permissible and they have not obtained necessary permission from HR and CE Department.
12.The learned Additional Advocate General conveyed that the respondent police are having apprehension that the people, who are promoting Agamas may create law and order problem for the poojas proposed to be conducted for the miniatures, treating it to be the Lord Murugan of Arupadai Veedu.
13. He further submits that though the petitioner claims that around 200 people would participate in the poojas, the police apprehend that since it is a public function organised in the name of God, there is possibility of unexpected crowd for the event and it would be very difficult to provide police security for a private function for 12 days. One of the grievances is that the proposed venue is surrounded by residential areas such as Kurunji Nagar, Masthan patti and Roy Garden. He also apprehends allowing loud speakers would cause nuisance to them.
14.One Ramalingam of Makkal Kalai Ilakkiya Kazhagam, Madurai, a political party has filed an application to intervene in WPCRL(MD)No.110 of 2025 with an objection that this event is creating unnecessary problem to the common man in the name of religion.
15.Yet another application is also filed by one Aranganathan, claiming to be a devotee of Lord Murugan and also the President of Archakar
Payirchipetra Manavargal Sangam. According to him, each temple of this Arupadai Veedu is having unique mythological significance viz, 1.Thiruparankundram commemorates the divine marriage of Lord Murugan and Deivanai, daughter of Indra, known for its intricate carvings and festivals promoting marital harmony; 2.Thiruchendur marks Lord Murugan’s victory over the demon Surapadman, symbolizing the triumph of good over evil, enhances by its coastal setting; 3.Palani represents Lord Murugan as a youthful renunciation after a dispute with Ganesha reverred for wisdom and spiritual growth. 4.Thiruthani commemorates Lord Murgan’s victory over Tarakasura, embodying courage and righteousness. 5.Pazhamudircholai depicts Lord Murugan with Valli and Deivanai in a serene forest setting, evoking tranquillity and harmony.
16.Each temple of this Aarupadai Veedu follows a distinct agama, custom and ritual. Installing temporary miniatures of these temples by the organisation is against agamic rules for temple rituals and idol consecration. He also submits that Aarupadai Veedu Temples are under the administrative control of the HR and CE Department. No individual or organisation can create temporary replicas of these temples without prior approval from the concerned temple authorities or the HR and CE Department, as per Section
34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The proposed set up disregards this requirement undermining the sanctity of these revered sites.
17.The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submits that mixing of religion and politics is against the Constitution and using God for politics is against the fraternity enshrined under the scheme of constitution. The learned counsel has also relied on the judgment of this Court in WP(MD)No.16817 of 2014 and WP (MD)No.23562 of 2019.
18.Considering the common issue involved, the learned counsel on either side have been requested to advance their arguments in common in both writ petitions.
19.Heard the learned Counsel on either side, perused the materials placed on record.
20.The petitioner’s organisation claims that they are promoting Hindu dharma and working for the upliftment of Hindus and creating awareness among the Hindus about their religion and rights. They are intending to conduct the conference in the name of Muruga Bakthargalin Aanmeega
Manadu at Madurai on 22.06.2025 from 3.00 pm to 8.00 pm in a private land. According to the petitioner’s organisation on the date of conference on 22.06.2025, there will be a joint prayer of devotees for the well being of the entire universe by chanting Kandhar Sasti Kavasam and Thirupugazh. Apart from that, spiritual and cultural programmes reflecting the culture and heritage are also to be organised. The participants will be the devotees of Lord Murgan, monks, spiritual personalities and pontiffs. The place of gathering is a private land and the land owner has given consent for conducting the programme.
21.Article 25 of the Constitution of India guarantees every person a right to freely profess, practice and propagate their religion. Therefore, any individual or organisation has the liberty to hold the function based on the religious faith. However this right is not absolute. There can be restrictions, if it is intended to affect the communal harmony. Our country is a diverse society having people of different faiths. The exercise of religious freedom must be harmonised with broader objective maintaining public order, mortality and communal harmony.
22.The Honourable Supreme Court has empowered the Law Enforcement Authorities to issue prohibitory orders whenever they find persons, speeches or actions, that are likely to trigger the communal antagonism and hatred, which affects the communal harmony. The
Honourable Supreme Court in State of Karnataka And Anr vs Dr. Praveen
Bhai Thogadia, reported in (2004) 4 SCC has held as under:
“Our country is the world’s most heterogeneous society, with rich heritage and our Constitution is committed to high ideas of socialism, secularism and the integrity of the nation. As is well known, several races have converged in this sub-continent and they carried with them their own cultures, languages, religions and customs affording positive recognition to the noble and ideal way of life – ‘Unity in Diversity’. Though these diversities created problems, in early days, they were mostly solved on the basis of human approaches and harmonious reconciliation of differences, usefully and peacefully. That is how secularism has come to be treated as a part of fundamental law, and an unalignable segment of the basic structure of the country’s political system. As noted in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India etc. (1994 (3) SCC 1) freedom of religion is granted to all persons of India. Therefore, from the point of view of the State, religion, faith or belief of a particular person has no place and given no scope for imposition on individual citizen. Unfortunately, of late vested interests fanning religious fundamentalism of all kinds vying with each other are attempting to subject the constitutional machinaries of the State to great stress and strain with certain quaint ideas of religious priorities, to promote their own selfish ends, undettered and unmindful of the disharmony it may ultimately bring about and even undermine national integration achieved with much difficulties and laudable determination of those strong spirited savants of yester years. Religion cannot be mixed with secular activities of the State and fundamentalism of any kind cannot be permitted to masquerade as political philosophies to the detriment of the larger interest of society and basic requirement of a welfare State. Religion sans spiritual values may even be perilous and bring about chaos and anarchy all around. It is, therefore, imperative that if any individual or group of persons, by their action or caustic and inflammatory speech are bent upon sowing seed of mutual hatred, and their proposed activities are likely to create disharmony and disturb equilibrium, sacrificing public peace and tranquility, strong action, and more so preventive actions are essentially and vitally needed to be taken. Any speech or action which would result in ostracization of communal harmony would destroy all those high values which the Constitution aims at. Welfare of the people is the ultimate goal of all laws, and State action and above all the Constitution. They have one common object, that is to promote well being and larger interest of the society as a whole and not of any individual or particular groups carrying any brand names. It is inconceivable that there can be social well being without communal harmony, love for each other and hatred for none. The chore of religion based upon spiritual values, which the Vedas, Upanishad and Puranas were said to reveal to mankind seem to be -“Love others, serve others, help ever, hurt never” and “Sarvae Jana Sukhino Bhavantoo”. Oneupship in the name of religion, whichever it be or at whomsoever’s instance it be, would render constitutional designs countermanded and chaos, claiming its heavy toll on society and humanity as a whole, may be the inevitable evil consequences, whereof.”
23.In this case, the State as well as the impleading petitioners apprehend that in the guise of religious event, the organisers may antagonise the other communities and there is possibility for communal clash. Two paper publications dated 10.06.2025 and 12.06.2025 are relied on by one of the impleading petitioners. One of the news article is based on the statement made by the President of Hindu Munnani / the petitioner’s Organisation and another by the Honourable Central Minister.
24.The apprehension of the impleading petitioners and the State has already been answered in the above cited judgment by referring to the earlier judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in S.R.Bommai Vs. Union of
India (1994) 3 SCC 1 and it would be relevant to extract the same
“197. Rise of fundamentalism and communalisation of politics are anti-secularism. They encourage separatist and divisive forces and become breeding grounds for national disintegration and fail the parliamentary democratic system and the Constitution. Judicial process must promote citizens’ active participation in electoral process uninfluenced by any corrupt practice to exercise their free and fair franchise. Correct interpretation in proper perspective would be in the defence of the democracy and to maintain the democratic process on an even keel even in the face of possible friction, it is but the duty of the court to interpret the Constitution to bring the political parties within the purview of constitutional parameters for accountability and to abide by the Constitution, the laws for their strict adherence.”
25.A separate Act is available to prevent the misuse of religious institutions for political and other parties in the name of Religious Institution (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1988. This Act defines the Religious Institution as any Institution for the promotion of any religion or persuasion and includes any place or premises used as a place of public Religious worship. Section 6 of the Act prohibits any ceremony, festival, congregation, procession or assembly organised or held under its auspices to be used for any political activity.
26.The petitioner’s Organisation, which claims to promote the religious values can also be included within such a definition.
27.In this case, the Organisers claim that they are arranging for a gathering by the devotees of Lord Murugan and it is only a devotional conference. The 3rd respondent has also granted permission for the main conference, which is scheduled to be held on 22.06.2025 with certain conditions.
28.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has raised serious objections with regard to condition No.7 that apart from the members of their organisation, common devotees may also attend the event and it would be difficult for the common devotees to approach the Deputy Superintendent of Police to apply and to obtain vehicle pass. This condition, according to the learned Additional Advocate General is only to organise the vehicles, which are supposed to take part in the event and also to prevent any vehicle procession.
29.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that they are not having plan to conduct vehicle procession in any form. This Court is of the view that this condition has been imposed in order to regulate the vehicles which are likely to participate in the event. If any participant applies for the vehicle pass, the police officer concerned shall issue the vehicle pass within
24 hours of the application. There is no reason to interfere with the condition. In the event, if the police refuse to grant vehicle pass, it has to be rejected with valid reasons.
30.The petitioner is also having an objection for condition No.44. By this condition, the respondent police have insisted the organisers to furnish the details about the persons, who are likely to participate in the conference district wise in advance on or before 18.06.2025. The police are going to issue vehicle passes and therefore, they will be having an idea about the persons and the number of vehicles, likely to participate in the conference. There is no need to furnish separate details by the organisers.
31.Yet another condition has been imposed that a permission has to be obtained from the HR & CE Department, before installing the miniatures under Section 34 of the HR and CE Act. The very same ground has been taken by one of the impleading petitioners in WPMPCRL(MD) No.47 of 2025. Section 34 of Tamil Nadu HR & CE Department Act 1959, is
pertaining to alienation of immovable property.
32.It appears that this condition has been imposed by the respondent police in a mechanical manner, based on the objections of the impleading petitioners. Similarly condition No.46 is for permission of the Corporation authorities under Section 431 of Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, which is also not relevant to the issue. One of the impleading petitioners has raised certain objections that the installation of miniatures and performing poojas for the miniatures is against agamas. The impleading petitioner claims that he is the President of an association with members of the certified archagas in the State. Though the impleading petitioner has pointed that the installation of miniatures is in violation of agama, he has not substantiated the same with any materials before this Court. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner has pointed that similar such events were conducted in the past with miniatures of Lord Venkateswara and Lord Shiva and there was no objection from any quarters for those events.
33.A restriction has been imposed for using drone in condition No.49. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner agrees for the same, however, requests to permit at least two drones to cover the event. He undertook that the drones will be used only within the conference ground and that too for coverage of the event. Therefore, this Court modifies the condition No.45 by permitting the petitioner organisation to use two drones for covering the events.
34.Regarding the installation of miniatures of six abodes of Lord
Murugan, the respondent has rejected the same on the ground that the application for the main event on 22.06.2025 itself is pending and they have not obtained any permission from the landlord. The petitioner has enclosed the permission of the landlord. The landlord has permitted the petitioner organisation to conduct the event. The respondent police have not pointed out any relevant provisions, which require any formal permission from the Corporation for installing this miniatures in the venue.
35.The other grounds of objections by the respondent police is that in and around the venue, there are residences and schools. This objection appears to be vague that even without mentioning the distance of the existing schools from the venue, the objection has been raised. The fact remains that the very same venue has been permitted to be used for several other conferences by the political parties. However, the petitioner organisation has to maintain the regulations as provided under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. This is also addressed by the respondent police in its order, dated 12.06.2025, by fixing decibel limit in condition No.23 and the same needs to be strictly complied with.
36.The requirement of the police permission for conducting the event is to ensure that there are no Law-and-order issues for the event and that the speakers if any to be installed must be well within the ambit of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000. The Petitioner has confirmed that they are not in need of any police personnel to maintain the participants and they are having their own volunteers and there is no need for deployment of police personnel. However, the event is to be conducted in a highway. It should not cause traffic congestion to the commuters. Therefore, necessary police personnel may be deployed by the Respondent Police to ensure the free flow of traffic. In the event if any police personnel is required by the organisers, the same shall be considered by the Respondent by collecting standard charges as per G.O.Ms No.139 Home (Pol.VIII) Dept. dated 04.03.2019.
37.The apprehension of the State as well as the impleading petitioners is that this event may disturb the communal harmony. They have relied on an
incident in an agitation, which took place on 05.02.2025 at
Thiruparangundram and the same was duly attended by the State as against a leader. The petitioner is organising this event as a religious conference for the devotees of Lord Murugan and for the well being of the universe. With that being the object, the organisers of the event must strictly comply with the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as stated supra and to ensure that communal harmony is maintained.
38.In view of the above WPCRL(MD) No.110 of 2025 is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The other writ petition in WPCRL(MD) No. 185 of 2025 is disposed of with the above modifications. In view of the orders passed in WPCRL(MD) Nos.110 of 2025 & 185 of 2025, the impleading petitions in WPMPCRL(MD)Nos.26 and 47 of 2025 are also disposed of. No costs.
13.06.2025
DSK/VRN
Internet : Yes
Index: Yes/ No NCC: Yes / No To
1.The Secretary,
Home Department, St.George Fort, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police, Alagarkoil main road, Madurai-2.
3.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anna Nagar Circle, Madurai-625 020.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Anna Nagar (L&O) Police Station, South Gate, Madurai-1.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
B.PUGALENDHI, J .
DSK/VRN
W.P.CRL.(MD)Nos.110 and 185 of 2025
13.06.2025
