THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos,174 and 217 of 2026 Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.16252, 16459, 16460, 16461, 16463, 16466, 16468, 16470, 16471, 16475, 16476, 16480, 16485, 18501, 18502, 18503, 18504, 18505, 18506 and 18507 of 2025 and Crl.R.C.(MD).Nos.1115, 1116, 1117, 1119, 1121, 1122, 1123, 1125, 1129, 1130, 1131 and 1132 of 2025, and Crl.M.P.Nos. 209, 210, 234 & 236 of 2026 and 11153, 11155, 11156, 11158, 11160, 11161, 11162, 11165, 11167, 11174, 11175, 11177, 13268, 13427, 13429, 13430, 13431, 13435, 13437, 13438, 13439, 13441, 13442, 13445, 13447, 13449, 15272, 15273, 15275, 15278, 15280, 15281, 15284 of 2025 CRL OP(MD) No.174 of 2026 1. M/s. PRP Exports, Represented by The Managing Partner Shri P. Palanisamy, Therkutheru Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 16.04.2026
Pronounced On : 24.06.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos,174 and 217 of 2026
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.16252, 16459, 16460, 16461, 16463, 16466, 16468,
16470, 16471, 16475, 16476, 16480, 16485, 18501, 18502, 18503, 18504,
18505, 18506 and 18507 of 2025 and
Crl.R.C.(MD).Nos.1115, 1116, 1117, 1119, 1121, 1122, 1123, 1125, 1129, 1130, 1131 and 1132 of 2025, and
Crl.M.P.Nos. 209, 210, 234 & 236 of 2026 and 11153, 11155, 11156, 11158,
11160, 11161, 11162, 11165, 11167, 11174, 11175, 11177, 13268, 13427,
13429, 13430, 13431, 13435, 13437, 13438, 13439, 13441, 13442, 13445, 13447, 13449, 15272, 15273, 15275, 15278, 15280, 15281, 15284 of 2025
CRL OP(MD) No.174 of 2026
1. M/s. PRP Exports,
Represented by The Managing Partner
Shri P. Palanisamy, Therkutheru Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai.
2.M/s.PRP. Granites,
represented by the Managing Partner
Shri P.Palanisamy,
Near Veerakaliyamman Koil,
Keelavalavu, Melur Taluk, Madurai.
3.M/s.PRP.Granite Exports,
Represented by the Partner
Shri P.Palanisamy, Therkutheru Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai.
4. P.Palanisamy
5. P.Senthil Kumar
6. P.Suresh Kumar
7. P.Selvi
8. S.Chandralekha
9. A.Maharajan … Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 1 to 9
–Vs—
The Directorate of Enforcement,
Chennai Zone- I
Represented by its Deputy Director,
2nd and 3rd Floor, C Block,
Murugesa Naicker Complex, 84 Greams Road,
Thousand Lights, Chennai-600 006.
…Respondent/Complainant
Prayer:
To call for the records in C.C.No.10 of 2018 in ECIR/CEZO/15/2013 dated 13.12.2013 on the file of the Learned II Additional District Court (Special Court of CBI Cases), Madurai and Quash the same.
For Petitioners: :Mr.R.John Sathyan
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.R.Tamilvanan
For Respondent :Mr.K.R.Laxman
Standing Counsel for ED
CRL OP(MD) No.217 of 2026
1. P. Palanisamy
2. P. Senthil Kumar
3. P. Suresh Kumar
4. A. Maharajan
5.M/s.PRP.Granites,
Represented by the partner,
Shri P.Palanisamy,
Near Veerakaliyamman Koil, Keelavalavu, Melur Taluk, Madurai.
6.M/s.PRP Exports,
Represented by the Partner,
Shri P.Palanisamy,
Therkutheru Village,
Melur Taluk, Madurai. …Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 4 to 7 and 17 & 18
–Vs–
The Directorate of Enforcement,
Chennai Zone- I,
Represented by its Deputy Director,
2nd and 3rd Floor, C Block,
Murugesa Naicker Complex,
84, Greams Road,
Thousand Lights, Chennai-600 006. …Respondent /complainant
Prayer: To call for the records in C.C.No.5 of 2022 in ECIR/CEZO/4/2014 dated 30.06.2014 on the file of the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai and Quash the same.
For Petitioners :Mr.R.John Sathyan
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.R.Tamilvanan
For Respondent :Mr.K.R.Laxman
Standing Counsel for ED
CRL OP(MD) No.16252 of 2025
1. P.Palanisamy
2. P.Suresh kumar
3. P.Selvi
4.Chandralekha
5. P.Senthil Kumar
6. M.Sivaranjani
7. A.Maharajan … Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 8
–Vs -1.The State rep by its
The Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Madurai District.
(Crime No.192 of 2013) …Respondent / complainant
2. R.Marimuthu,
Village Administrative Officer,
Navinipatti Village,
Melur Taluk, Madurai. …Respondent/ De-facto complainant
Prayer: To call for the entire records pertaining to Spl.SC.No.1 of 2021 on the file of the learned Special District Court (Special Court to Deal with the Cases of Offences in Contravention of the Provisions of the Mines and
MInerals (D and R) Act, 1957), Madurai in connection with the FIR in Crime No.192/2013 and quash the same in so for as concerned petitioners 1 to 7/Accused No.2 to 8.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.S.Agilesh Kumar
For Respondents :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar for R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL OP(MD) No.16459 of 2025
1. P.Palanisamy
2. P.Selvi
3.Chandralekha
4. M.Sivaranjani
5. P.Senthil Kumar
6. P.Suresh Kumar
7. A.Maharajan …Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 2 to 8
–Vs —
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
rep by its The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai District.
(Crime No .256 of 2012) ..Respondent / complainant
2. M.Akbar Sait,
Village Administrative Officer,
Keelaiyur Village,
Melur Taluk, Madurai. …Respondent/De-facto complainant
Prayer: To call for the entire records pertaining to Spl.S.C. No. 11 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special District Court (Special Court to Deal with the cases of Offences in Contravention of the Provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D and R) Act, 1957), Madurai in connection with the FIR in Crime No.256/2012 and quash the same in so for as concerned petitioners 1 to 7 / accused No.2 to 8.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.S.Agilesh Kumar
For Respondents :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar for R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL OP(MD) No.16460 of 2025
1. P.Palanisamy
2. P.Selvi
3. S.Chandralekha
4. M.Sivaranjani
5. P.Senthil kumar
6. P.Suresh Kumar
7. A.Maharajan … Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 2 to 7 and 10
–Vs —
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep by its
The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai District.
(Crime No.155 of 2012) …Respondents /Complainant
2.M.Akbar Sait
Village Administrative Officer,
Keelaiyur Village,
Melur Taluk, Madurai. …Respondent/De-facto complainant
Prayer: To call for the entire records pertaining to P.R.C. No. 14 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Melur in connection with the FIR in Crime No.155/2012 and quash the same in so for as concerned petitioners 1 to 7 / accused No. 2 to 7 and 10.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.S.Agilesh Kumar
For Respondents :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar for R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL OP(MD) No.16461 of 2025
1. P. Palanisamy
2. P. Selvi
3. P. Senthil Kumar
4. P. Suresh Kumar
5.A. Maharajan …Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 7 to 11
–Vs—
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep by its
The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai District.
(Crime No.223 of 2013) … Respondent/Complainant
2. P.Ravichandra Prabhu
Village Administrative Officer,
Keelavalavu Village,
Melur Taluk, Madurai. … Respondent/De-facto complainant
Prayer: To call for the entire records pertaining to Spl.S.C. No. 39 of 2021 on the file of the learned Special District Court (Special Court to Deal with the cases of Offences in Contravention of the Provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D and R) Act, 1957), Madurai in connection with the FIR in Crime No.223/2013 and quash the same in so for as concerned petitioners 1 to 7 / accused No.7 to 11.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.S.Agilesh Kumar
For Respondents :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar for R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL OP(MD) No.16463 of 2025
1. P. Palanisamy
2. P. Selvi
3. Chandralekha
4. M. Sivaranjani
5. P. Senthil Kumar
6. P. Suresh Kumar
7. A. Maharajan …Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 2 to 7
and 10
8.
–Vs—
1.The State rep. by its
The Inspector of Police,
Keelavalavu Police Station
(Crime No.171 of 2012) …Respondent/complainant
2. A.Mohamed Ali
Village Administrative Officer,
E.Malampatti Village,
Melur Taluk, Madurai. …Respondent/De-facto complainant
Prayer: To call for the entire records pertaining to Spl.S.C. No. 17/2021 on the file of the learned Special District Court (Special Court to Deal with the cases of Offences in Contravention of the Provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D and R) Act, 1957), Madurai in connection with the FIR in Crime No.171/2012 and quash the same in so for as concerned petitioners 1 to 7 / accused No. 2 to 7 & 10.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.S.Agilesh Kumar
For Respondents :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar for R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL OP(MD) No.16466 of 2025
1. P. Palanisamy
2. P. Senthilkumar
3. P. Suresh Kumar
4. A. Maharajan
5. P. Selvi
6. S. Chandralekha
7. M. Sivaranjani …Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 2 to 6, 11 and 12
–Vs–
1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its
The Inspector of Police, Othakadai Police Station, Madurai District.
(Crime No.509 of 2012) ..Respondent / complainant
2. Prabhakaran
Village Administrative Officer,
Poolampatti Village,
Melur Taluk, Madurai. … Respondent/De-facto complainant
Prayer : To call for the entire records pertaining to Spl.S.C. No. 35/2024 on the file of the learned Special District Court (Special Court to Deal with the cases of Offences in Contravention of the Provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D and R) Act, 1957), Madurai in connection with the FIR in Crime No. 509/2012 and quash the same in so for as concerned petitioners 1 to 7 / accused No.2 to 6, 11 & 12.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.S.Agilesh Kumar
For Respondents :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar for R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL OP(MD) No.16468 of 2025
1. P. Palanisamy
2. P. Selvi
3. Chandralekha
4. M. Sivaranjani
5. P. Senthil Kumar
6. P.suresh kumar
7. A.Maharajan … Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 2 to 8
–Vs —
1 The State rep. by its
The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai District.
(Crime No.62 of 2013) …Respondent / complainant
2. M.Akbar Sait,
Village Administrative Officer,
Keelaiyur Village,
Melur Taluk, Madurai. . .. Respondent/De-facto complainant
Prayer : To call for the entire records pertaining to Spl.SC.No.13 of 2021 on the file of the learned Special District Court (Special Court to Deal with the Cases of Offences in Contravention of the Provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D and R) Act, 1957), Madurai in connection with the FIR in Crime No.62/2013 and quash the same in so for as concerned petitioners 1 to 7 / accused No. 2 to 8.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.S.Agilesh Kumar
For Respondents :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar for R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL OP(MD) No.16470 of 2025
1. P. Senthil Kumar
2. P. Palanisamy
3. P. Suresh Kumar
4. A. Maharajan
5. P. Selvi
6. Chandralekha
7. M.Sivaranjani … Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 1 to 4, 9 to 11
–Vs—
1.The State rep. by its
The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai District.
(Crime No.106/2013). …Respondent/ complainant
2. M. Akbar Sait,
Village Administrative Officer,
Keelaiyur Village,
Melur Taluk, Madurai. … Respondent/ De-facto complainant
Prayer : To call for the entire records pertaining to Spl.S.C. No.38/2021 on the file of the learned Special District Court (Special court to Deal with the cases of offences in Contravention of the Provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D and R) Act, 1957), Madurai in connection with the FIR in Crime No.106/2013 and quash the same in so for as concerned petitioners 1 to 4, 9 to 11 / accused No.1 to 4, 9 to 11.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.S.Agilesh Kumar
For Respondents :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar for R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL OP(MD) No.16471 of 2025
1. P. Palanisamy
2. P. Senthil Kumar
3. P. Suresh Kumar
4. A. Maharajan
5. P. Selvi
6. Chandralekha
7. M.Sivaranjani … Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 2 to 8
–Vs—
1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep., by its
The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai District.
(Crime No. 257 of 2013) …Respondents /Complainant
2. M.Akbar Sait
Village Administrative Officer,
Keelaiyur Village,
Melur Taluk, Madurai. … Respondent/De-facto complainant
Prayer : To call for the entire records pertaining to Spl.S.C. No. 12/2023 on the file of the learned Special District Court (Special Court to Deal with the cases of Offences in Contravention of the Provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D and R) Act), 1957), Madurai in connection with the FIR in Crime No.257/2012 and quash the same in so for as concerned petitioners 1 to 7 / accused No.2 to 8.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.S.Agilesh Kumar
For Respondents :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar for R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL OP(MD) No.16475 of 2025
1. P. Palanisamy
2. P. Senthil Kumar
3. P. Suresh Kumar
4. A. Maharajan … Petitioners / Accused Nos. 2, 4 to 6
–Vs–
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep., by its The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai District.
(Crime No.225 of 2013) …Respondent/Complainant
2. P. Ravichandra Prabhu,
Village Administrative Officer,
Keelavalavu Village,
Melur Taluk, Madurai. … Respondent/De-facto complainant Prayer : To call for the entire records pertaining to Spl.SC.No.2 of 2021 on the file of the learned Special District Court (Special Court to Deal with the Cases of Offences in Contravention of the Provisions of the Mines and
Minerals (D and R) Act, 1957), Madurai in connection with the FIR in Crime No.225/2013 and quash the same in so for as concerned petitioners 1 to 4 / Accused No.2, 4 to 6.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.S.Agilesh Kumar
For Respondents :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar for R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL OP(MD) No.16476 of 2025
1. P. Palanisamy
2. P. Selvi
3. P. Senthil Kumar
4. P. Suresh Kumar
5. M. Sivaranjani
6. A. Maharajan
7. Chandralekha … Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 2 to 8
–Vs-1. The State rep by its
The Inspector of Police,
Othakadai Police Station, Madurai District.
(Crime No.415 of 2013) ….Respondent/Complainant
2. Vincent Xavier Raj Tahsildar,
Madurai North Taluk,
Madurai. … Respondent/De-facto complainant
Prayer : To call for the entire records pertaining to Spl.S.C. No.3/2021 on the file of the learned Special District Court (Special court to Deal with the cases of offences in Contravention of the Provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D and R) Act, 1957), Madurai in connection with the FIR in Crime No.415/2013 and quash the same in so for as concerned petitioners 1 to 7 / accused No. 2 to 8.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.S.Agilesh Kumar
For Respondents :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar for R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL OP(MD) No.16480 of 2025
1. P. Palanisamy
2. P. Selvi
3. P. Senthil Kumar
4. P. Suresh Kumar
5. Chandralekha
6. M.Sivaranjani
7. A.Maharajan … Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 2 to 7 and 10
–Vs—
1. The State rep by its
The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai District.
(Crime No.175 of 2012) …Respondent/ complainant
2. A.Parthiban,
Village Administrative Officer,
Keelavalavu Village,
Melur Taluk, Madurai. … Respondent/De-facto complainant
Prayer : To call for the entire records pertaining to Spl.SC.No.48 of 2021 on the file of the learned Special District Court (Special Court to Deal with the Cases of Offences in Contravention of the Provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D and R) Act. 1957), Madurai in connection with the FIR in Crime No.175/2012 and quash the same in so for as concerned petitioners 1 to 7 / accused No. 2 to 7 and 10.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.S.Agilesh Kumar
For Respondents :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar for R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL OP(MD) No.16485 of 2025
1. P. Palanisamy
2. P. Senthil Kumar
3. P. Suresh Kumar
4. A. Maharajan
5. P. Selvi
6. Chandralekha
7. M. Sivaranjani … Petitioners/ Accused 2 to 8
–Vs–
1. The State rep by its
The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai District.
(Crime No.258 of 2012) …Respondent / complainant
2. M.Akbar Sait,
Village Administrative Officer,
Keelaiyur Village,
Melur Taluk, Madurai. … Respondent/De-facto complainant
Prayer : To call for the entire records pertaining to Spl.S.C. No.13/2023 on the file of the learned Special District Court (Special court to Deal with the cases of offences in Contravention of the Provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D and R) Act, 1957), Madurai in connection with the FIR in Crime No. 258/2012 and quash the same in so for as concerned petitioners 1 to 7 / accused No. 2 to 8.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.S.Agilesh Kumar
For Respondents :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar for R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL OP(MD) No.18501 of 2025
1. P. Palanisamy
2. P. Senthil Kumar
3. P. Suresh Kumar
4. A. Maharajan … Petitioners / Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 8
–Vs–
1. The State rep. by its
The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai District.
Crime No.107 of 2013 …Respondent/ complainant
2. Akbar Sait,
Village Administrative Officer,
Keelaiyur Village,
Melur Taluk, Madurai. .. Respondent/De-facto complainant Prayer : To call for the entire pertaining to Spl.S.C. No. 11 of 2021 on the file of the learned Special District court (Special Court to Deal with the cases of Offences in Contravention of the Provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D and R) Act, 1957), Madurai in connection with the FIR in Crime No. 107/2013 and quash the same in so for as concerned petitioners 1 to 4 / accused No.2, 4, 5, 8.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.S.Agilesh kumar
For Respondents :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar for R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL OP(MD) No.18502 of 2025
1. P. Palanisamy
2. P. Senthil Kumar
3. P. Suresh Kumar
4. A. Maharajan … Petitioners / Accused Nos.3, 5 to 7
–Vs-1. The State rep. by its
The Inspector of Police,
Keelavalavu Police Station,
(Crime No.220 of 2013) … Respondent/Complainant
2. G.Alagupandian,
Village Administrative Officer,
Keelaiyur Village, Melur Taluk,
Madurai. … Respondent/De-facto complainant
Prayer : To call for the entire records pertaining to Spl.S.C. No. 16 of 2021 on the file of the learned Special District court (Special Court to Deal with the cases of Offences in Contravention of the Provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D and R) Act, 1957), Madurai in connection with the FIR in Crime No. 220/2013 and quash the same in so for as concerned petitioners 1 to 4 / accused No.3, 5 to 7.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.S.Agilesh kumar
For Respondents :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar for R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL OP(MD) No.18503 of 2025
1. P. Palanisamy
2. P. Senthil Kumar
3. P. Suresh Kumar
4. A. Maharajan … Petitioners /Accused Nos.2 to 4 and 8
–Vs–
1. The State rep. by its
The Inspector of Police,
Keelavalavu Police Station
(Crime No.157 of 2012) …Respondent/Complainant
2. Mohamed Ali,
Village Administrative Officer,
E. Malampatti Village,
Melur Taluk, Madurai. … Respondent/De-facto complainant
Prayer : To call for the entire records pertaining to Spl.SC.No.22 of 2021 on the file of the Learned Special District Court (Special Court to Deal with the Cases of Offences in Contravention of the Provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D and R) Act, 1957), Madurai in connection with the FIR in
Crime No.157/2012 and quash the same in so for as concerned Petitioner / Accused 2 to 4 & 8.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.S.Agileshkumar
For Respondents :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar for R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL OP(MD) No.18504 of 2025
1. P. Palanisamy
2. P. Senthil Kumar
3. P. Suresh Kumar
4. A. Maharajan … Petitioners / Accused Nos. 6, 8 to 10 –Vs–
1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep by its The Inspector of Police,
Vikkiramangalam Police Station,
(Crime No.142 of 2013) …Respondent /complainant
2. A.Thirupathi,
Village Administrative Officer,
Sakkarappanaickanur Village,
Usilampatti Taluk,
Madurai. … Respondent/De-facto complainant
Prayer: To call for the entire records pertaining to Spl.S.C. No.34/2021 on the file of the learned Special District court (Special Court to Deal with the cases of Offences in Contravention of the Provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D and R) Act, 1957), Madurai in connection with the FIR in
Crime No.142/2013 and quash the same in so for as concerned petitioners 1 to 4/accused No.6, 8 to 10.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.S.Agilesh kumar
For Respondents :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar for R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL OP(MD) No.18505 of 2025
1. P. Palanisamy
2. P. Senthil Kumar
3. P. Suresh Kumar
4. A. Maharajan … Petitioners /Accused Nos.3, 5 to 7
–Vs—
1. The State rep. by its The Inspector of Police,
Keelavalavu Police Station.
(Crime No.222 of 2013) … Respondent/Complainant
2. P. Ravichandra Prabhu
Village Administrative Officer,
Keelavalavu Village,
Melur Taluk, Madurai. … Respondent/De-facto complainant
Prayer: To call for the entire records pertaining to Spl.SC.No.46/2021 on the file of the learned Special District Court(Special Court to Deal with the cases of offences in Contravention of the Provisions of the Mines and Minerals(D and R) Act 1957), Madurai in connection with the FIR in Crime No.222/2013 and quash the same in so for as concerned petitioners 1 to 4 / accused No. 3, 5 to 7.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.S.Agilesh kumar
For Respondents :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar for R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL OP(MD) No.18506 of 2025
1. P. Palanisamy
2. P. Senthil Kumar
3. P. Suresh Kumar
4. A. Maharajan … Petitioners / Accused Nos. 3, 5 to 7
–Vs—
1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep by its
The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai District.
(Crime No.221 of 2013) …Respondent/ complainant
2. Poopandi,
Revenue Inspector,
Keelavalavu Sub-Division,
Melur Taluk, Madurai. … Respondent/De-facto complainant
Prayer : To call for the entire pertaining to Spl.S.C. No. 47 of 2021 on the file of the learned Special District court (Special Court to Deal with the cases of Offences in Contravention of the Provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D and R) Act, 1957), Madurai in connection with the FIR in Crime No.221/2013 and quash the same in so for as concerned petitioners 1 to 4 / accused No.3, 5 to 7.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.S.Agilesh kumar
For Respondents :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar for R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL OP(MD) No.18507 of 2025
1. P. Palanisamy
2. P. Suresh Kumar
3. P. Senthil Kumar
4. A. Maharajan .. Petitioners/ Accused Nos.9, 13 to 15
–Vs—
1. The State rep. by its The Inspector of Police,
Othakadai Police Station.
(Crime No.411 of 2012) … Respondent/Complainant
2. Seetha,
Village Administrative Officer,
Idayapatti Village,
Madurai North, Madurai. … Respondent/De-facto complainant
Prayer : To call for the entire records pertaining to Spl.S.C. No.57 of 2021 on the file of the learned Special District court (Special Court to Deal with the cases of Offences in Contravention of the Provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D and R) Act, 1957), Madurai in connection with the FIR in Crime No. 411/2012 and quash the same in so for as concerned petitioners 1 to 4/ accused No.9, 13 to 15.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.S.Agilesh kumar
For Respondents :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar for R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL RC(MD) No.1115 of 2025
P. Selvi … Petitioner / Accused No.3
–Vs—
The State rep by its
The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai District.
Crime No.228 of 2012 … Respondent /complainant
Prayer : To call for the entire records relating to the order dated 27.03.2023 made in Crl MP No.2344/2022 in Spl SC No.21/2021 on the file of the Learned Special Court to Deal with the cases of offences in contravention of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D and R) Act, Madurai and set aside the same by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Court.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.V.Malaiyendran
For Respondent :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL RC(MD) No.1116 of 2025
1. P. Selvi
2. S. Chandralekha
3. M. Sivaranjani
… Petitioners / Accused Nos. 4, 8 and 9
–Vs—
The State of Tamil Nadu
rep by its The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai District.
Crime No.221 of 2013 … Respondent/complainant
Prayer : To call for the records relating to the order dated 27.03.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No.2312 of 2022 in Spl.SC.No.47 of 2021 on the file of the Learned Special Court to Deal with the cases of offences in contravention of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D and R) Act, Madurai and set aside the same by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Court.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
For Respondent :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL RC(MD) No.1117 of 2025
1. P. Selvi
2. S. Chandralekha
3. M. Sivaranjani … Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 4, 7 and 8
–Vs—
The State rep by its
The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai District.
(Crime No.61 of 2013) … Respondent/complainant
Prayer : To call for the records relating to the order dated 27.03.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No. 2318/2022 in Spl.SC.No.12/2021 on the file of the Learned Special Court to Deal with the cases of offences in contravention of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D and R) Act, Madurai and set aside the same by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Court.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
For Respondent :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL RC(MD) No.1119 of 2025
1. P. Selvi
2. M. Sivaranjani
3. S. Chandralekha … Petitioners / Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4
–Vs—
The State rep. by its The Inspector of Police,
Othakadai Police Station.
(Crime No.487 of 2012) … Respondent/complainant
Prayer : To call for the records relating to the order dated 27.03.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No.2358/2022 in Spl SC No.30/2021 on the file of the Learned Special Court to Deal with the cases of offences in contravention of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D and R) Act, Madurai and set aside the same by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Court.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
For Respondent :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL RC(MD) No.1121 of 2025
1. P. Selvi
2. S. Chandralekha
3. M. Sivaranjani
… Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 4, 8 and 9
–Vs—
The State of Tamil Nadu rep by its The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai District.
Crime No.220 of 2013 … Respondent/complainant
Prayer : To call for the records relating to the order dated 27.03.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No.2317/2022 in Spl.SC.No.16/2021 on the file of the Learned Special Court to Deal with the cases of offences in contravention of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D and R) Act, Madurai and set aside the same by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Court.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.V.Malaiyendran
For Respondent :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL RC(MD) No.1122 of 2025
1. P. Selvi
2. M. Sivaranjani
3. S. Chandralekha … Petitioners/ Accused Nos.3, 4 and 12
–Vs—
The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its The Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station.
(Crime No.743 of 2012) … Respondent/complainant
Prayer :To call for the records relating to the order dated 27.03.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No.2356 of 2022 in Spl.SC.No.42 of 2021 on the file of the Learned Special Court to Deal with the cases of offences in contravention of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D and R) Act, Madurai and set aside the same by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Court.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.V.Malaiyendran
For Respondent :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL RC(MD) No.1123 of 2025
1. P. Selvi
2. S. Chandralekha
3. M. Sivaranjani … Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 3, 6 and 7
–Vs—
The State rep by its
The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai District.
Crime No.107 of 2013 … Respondent/complainant
Prayer : To call for the records relating to the order dated 27.03.2023 made in Crl MP No.2310/2022 in Spl SC No.11/2021 on the file of the Learned Special Court to Deal with the cases of offences in contravention of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D and R) Act, Madurai and set aside the same by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Court.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.V.Malaiyendran
For Respondent :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL RC(MD) No.1125 of 2025
1. P. Selvi
2. S. Chandralekha
3. M. Sivaranjani … Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5
–Vs—
The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its The Inspector of Police,
Melur Police Station,
(Crime No.744 of 2012) … Respondent/complainant
Prayer : To call for the records relating to the order dated 27.03.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No. 2352/2022 in Spl.SC.No.43/2021 on the file of the Learned Special Court to Deal with the cases of offences in contravention of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D and R) Act, Madurai and set aside the same by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Court.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.V.Malaiyendran
For Respondent :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL RC(MD) No.1129 of 2025
1. P. Selvi
2. S. Chandralekha
3. M. Sivaranjani … Petitioners / Accused Nos. 10, 11 and 12
–Vs—
The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its
The Inspector of Police, Othakkadai Police Station, Madurai District.
(Crime No.411 of 2012) … Respondent/complainant
Prayer : To call for the records relating to the order dated 27.03.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No. 2354/2022 in Spl.SC.No.57/2021 on the file of the Learned Special Court to Deal with the cases of offences in contravention of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D and R) Act, Madurai and set aside the same by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Court.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.V.Malaiyendran
For Respondent :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL RC(MD) No.1130 of 2025
1. S. Chandralekha
2. M. Sivaranjani … Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 8 and 9
–Vs—
The State of Tamil Nadu rep by its The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai District.
(Crime No.222 of 2013) … Respondent/complainant
Prayer : To call for the records relating to the order dated 27.03.2023 made in Crl.MP.No.2347 of 2022 in Spl.SC.No.46 of 2021 on the file of the Learned Special Court to Deal with the cases of offences in contravention of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D and R) Act, Madurai and set aside the same by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Court.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.V.Malaiyendran
For Respondent :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL RC(MD) No.1131 of 2025
1. P. Selvi
2. M. Sivaranjani … Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 5 and 6
–Vs—
The State of Tamil Nadu rep by its The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai.
(Crime No.225 of 2012) … Respondent/complainant
Prayer :To call for the records relating to the order dated 27.03.2023 made in Crl MP No.2349/2022 in Spl SC No.37/2021 on the file of the Learned Special Court to Deal with the cases of offences in contravention of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D and R) Act, Madurai and set aside the same by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Court.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.V.Malaiyendran
For Respondent :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL RC(MD) No.1132 of 2025
1. P. Selvi
2. M. Sivaranjani
3. S. Chandralekha … Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 5, 6 and 7
-Vs-
The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai District.
(Crime No.234 of 2012) … Respondent/complainant
Prayer : To call for the records relating to the order dated 27.03.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No.2308 of 2022 in Spl.SC.No.41 of 2021 on the file of the Learned Special Court to Deal with the cases of offences in contravention of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D and R) Act, Madurai and set aside the same by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Court.
For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban
Senior Advocate for
:Mr.V.Malaiyendran
For Respondents :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
COMMON ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN.J]
sl. no Petition name Rank Crime.No Spl.S.C.No Crl.OP.No Offences under sections
1 1.PRP Exports
2.PRP. Granites
3.PRP.Granite
Exports
4. P.Palanisamy
5. P.Senthil Kumar
6. P.Suresh Kumar
7. P.Selvi
8. S.Chandralekha
9. A.Maharajan 1-9 C.C.No.
10 of
2018 ECIR/CEZ O/15/2013 174/2026 45(1) r/w
Section 3, 4 and
Section 8(5) of the Prevention of
Money
Laundering Act, 2002
2 1. P.Palanisamy
2. P.Senthilkumar
3. P.Sureshkumar
4. A.Maharajan
5.M/s.PRP.Granite
6.M/s.PRP
Exports, 4-7 & 17, 18 C.C.No.5 of 2022 ECIR/CEZ O/4/2014 217/2026 45(1) r/w
Section 3, 4 and
Section 8(5) of the Prevention of
Money
Laundering Act, 2002
3 1. P.Palanisamy
2. P.Suresh kumar
3. P.Selvi
4.Chandralekha
5. P.Senthilkumar
6. M.Sivaranjani
7. A.Maharajan 2-8 192 of 2013 1/2021 16252/202 5 447, 434, 379 ,
420, 465, 467,
468, 471, 304
(ii) IPC r/w 511, 109,114 IPC and
Sec 3(i) of
TNP(PD&L) Act 1992 and 6 r/w 3(a), 4(a) of Explosive
Substances Act 1908 r/w 120B IPC.
sl. no Petition name Rank Crime.No Spl.S.C.No Crl.OP.No Offences under sections
4 1. P.Palanisamy
2. P.Selvi
3.Chandralekha
4. M.Sivaranjani
5. P.Senthilkumar
6. P.Suresh Kumar
7. A.Maharajan 2-8 256 /2012 11/2023 16459/202 5 447, 434, 379 ,
420, 465, 467,
468, 471, 304
(ii) IPC r/w 511,
109,114 IPC and Sec 3(i) and 4 of TNP(PD&L) Act 1992 and 6 r/w 3(a), 4(a) of
Explosive
Substances Act 1908 r/w 120B IPC.
5 1. P.Palanisamy
2. P.Selvi
3.Chandralekha
4. M.Sivaranjani
5. P.Senthil kumar
6. P.Suresh Kumar
7. A.Maharajan 2-7&10 155/ 2012 P.R.C.No. 14/2022 16460/202 5 447, 430, 434,
379, 201,420,
465, 467, 468,
471, 304 (ii) IPC r/w 511,
109,114 IPC and
Sec 3(i) , 3(ii) and 4 of
TNP(PD&L) Act 1992 and 6 r/w 3(a), 4(a) of
Explosive
Substances Act 1908 r/w 120B IPC.
sl. no Petition name Rank Crime.No Spl.S.C.No Crl.OP.No Offences under sections
6 1. P.Palanisamy
2. P.Selvi
3. P.Senthilkumar
4 P.Suresh Kumar
5.A.Maharajan 7-11 223/ 2013 39/2021 16461/202 5 120B, 447, 379,
420, 430, 434,
465, 467, 468,
471, 304 (ii) IPC r/w 511, 109
IPC and Sec 3(i) , 3(ii) and of
TNP(PD&L) Act
1992 and sec
3(a), 4(a) r/w 6 of Explosive
Substances Act 1908 r/w 109 & 114 IPC.
7 1. P.Palanisamy
2. P.Selvi
3.Chandralekha
4. M.Sivaranjani
5. P.Senthil kumar
6. P.Suresh Kumar
7. A.Maharajan 2-7& 10 171/2012 17/2021 16463/202 5 120B, 447, 379,
201, 420, 430,
434, 465, 467,
468, 471, 304
(ii) IPC r/w 511,
109, 114 IPC and Sec 3(i) ,
3(ii) and 4 of
TNP(PD&L) Act
1992 and sec
3(a), 4(a) r/w 6 of Explosive Substances Act
1908 r/w 34 IPC.
8 1. P.Palanisamy
2. P.Senthilkumar
3. P.Suresh Kumar
4. A.Maharajan
5. P.Selvi
6.Chandralekha
7.M.Sivaranjani 2-6,11 &12 509/2012 35/2024 16466/202 5 447, 379, 434,
420, 465, 467,
468, 471 IPC r/w
109, 114 IPC &
3(i) TNP(PD
&L) Act 1992
IPC r/w 120-B IPC
sl. no Petition name Rank Crime.No Spl.S.C.No Crl.OP.No Offences under sections
9 1. P.Palanisamy
2. P.Selvi
3.Chandralekha
4. M.Sivaranjani
5. P.Senthil kumar
6. P.Suresh Kumar
7. A.Maharajan 2-8 62/2013 13/2021 16468/202 5 120B, 447, 379,
201, 420, 434,
465, 467, 468,
471, 304 (ii) IPC r/w 511, 109,
114 IPC and Sec
3(i) and 4 of
TNP(PD&L) Act
1992 and sec 6, 3(a), 4(a) of Explosive Substances Act 1908.
10 1. P.Senthil kumar
2. P.Palanisamy
3. P.Suresh Kumar
4. A.Maharajan
5. P.Selvi
6.Chandralekha
7.M.Sivaranjani 1-4, 9-11 106/2013 38/2021 16470/202 5 447, 379, 434,
420, 465, 467,
468, 471, 304(ii) IPC r/w. 511,
109, 114 IPC and 3(i) & 4 of
TNP(PD and L)
Act 1992 & sec
6 r/w 3(a) 4(a) of
Explosive
Substances Act
1908 r/w 120-B IPC
sl. no Petition name Rank Crime.No Spl.S.C.No Crl.OP.No Offences under sections
11 1. P.Palanisamy
2. P.Senthilkumar
3. P.Suresh kumar
4. A.Maharajan
5. P.Selvi
6.Chandralekha
7.M.Sivaranjani 2-8 257/2012 12/2023 16471/202 5 447, 434, 379,
420, 430, 465,
467, 468, 471,
304(ii) IPC r/w 109, 114,
511 IPC and sec 3(i), 3(ii) &
4 of
TNP(PD and L)
Act 1992 & sec
3(a) , 4(a) & 6 of
Explosive
Substances Act r/w 120-B IPC
12 1. P.Palanisamy
2. P.Senthilkumar
3. P.Suresh kumar
4. A.Maharajan 2, 4-6 225/2013 2/2021 16475/202 5 447, 379, 420,
430, 434, 465,
467, 468, 471,
304(ii) IPC r/w 511, 109 IPC and sec 3(i),
3(ii) of
TNP(PD and L)
Act 1992 & sec
3(a) & 4(a) & 6 of Explosive
Substances Act
1908 r/w 109, 114 IPC r/w 120-B IPC
sl. no Petition name Rank Crime.No Spl.S.C.No Crl.OP.No Offences under sections
13 1. P.Palanisamy
2. P.Selvi
3. P.Senthilkumar
4. P.Suresh kumar
5. M.Sivaranjani
6..A.Maharajan
7.Chandralekha 2-8 415/2013 3/2021 16476/202 5 447, 379, 420,
430, 434, 465,
467, 468, 471,
304 (ii) r/w
511,109,114 IPC and Sec 3(i) &
3(ii) and 4 of
TNP(PD&L) Act
1992 r/w sec
3(a), 4(a), r/w 6 of Explosive
Substances Act
1908.R/W 120B IPC
14 1. P.Palanisamy
2. P.Selvi
3. P.Senthilkumar
4. P.Suresh kumar
5.Chandralekha
6. M.Sivaranjani
7. A.Maharajan 2-7&10 175/2012 48/2021 16480/202 5 120B, 447, 379,
420, 430, 434,
465, 467, 468,
471, 304 (ii) r/w
511 IPC and Sec
3(i) & 3(ii) and
4 of
TNP(PD&L) Act
1992 r/w 109,
114 IPC and sec
3(a), 4(a), r/w 6 of Explosive Substances Act 1908.
sl. no Petition name Rank Crime.No Spl.S.C.No Crl.OP.No Offences under sections
15 1. P.Palanisamy
2. P.Senthilkumar
3. P.Suresh kumar
4. A.Maharajan
5. P.Selvi
6.Chandralekha
7.M.Sivaranjani 2-8 258/2012 13/2023 16485/202 5 447, 379, 420,
430, 434, 465,
467, 468, 471,
304 (i) IPC r/w 109, 114, 511, IPC Sec 3(i)
3(ii) & 4 of
TNPPDL Act
1992 and sec
3(a), 4(a), 6 of
Explosive
Substances Act
1908.R/W 120B IPC.
16 1. P.Palanisamy
2. P.Senthilkumar
3. P.Suresh kumar
4. A.Maharajan 2-5&8 107/2013 11/2021 18501/202 5 120B, 447, 379,
420, 430, 434,
465, 467, 468,
471, 304 (ii) IPC r/w 109, 114,
511, IPC Sec
3(i) 3(ii) & 4 of
TNPPDL Act
1992 and sec
3(a), 4(a), 6 of
Explosive Substances Act 1908.
sl. no Petition name Rank Crime.No Spl.S.C.No Crl.OP.No Offences under sections
17 1. P.Palanisamy
2. P.Senthilkumar
3. P.Suresh kumar
4. A.Maharajan 3, 5-7 220/2013 16/2021 18502/202 5 Sec 447, 379,
420, 434, 430,
465, 467, 468,
471, 304(ii) IPC r/w 109, 114,
511 IPC and Sec 3(i), 3(ii) & 4 of
TNP (PD&L)
Act and sec 3(a) & 4(a) & 6 of Explosive
Substances Act
1908 r\w 120 B IPC
18 1.P.Palanisamy
2..P.Senthilkumar
3. P.Suresh kumar
4. A.Maharajan 2-4&8 157/2012 22/2021 18503/202 5 147, 447, 379,
120(b) IPC r/w
3(i) and 3(ii) of
TNPPDL Act 1992
19 1. P.Palanisamy
2. P.Senthilkumar
3. P.Suresh kumar
4. A.Maharajan 6, 8-10 142/2013 34/2021 18504/202 5 120B,
447,379,420,434
,465,467,468,47
1, 305(ii)IPC r/w
511,109,114 IPC
& Sec 3 (i) TNPPDL Act & sec 6 , 3(a), 4(a) explosive substsance Act
sl. no Petition name Rank Crime.No Spl.S.C.No Crl.OP.No Offences under sections
20 1. P.Palanisamy
2. P.Senthilkumar
3. P.Suresh kumar
4. A.Maharajan 3&5-7 222/2013 46/2021 18505/202 5 Sec 447, 379,
420, 434, 465,
467, 468, 471,
304(ii) IPC r/w
109, 114, 511
IPC and Sec 3(i) of TNP (PD&L) Act and sec 3(a) & 4(a) & 6 of
Explosive
Substances Act
21 1. P.Palanisamy
2. P.Senthilkumar
3. P.Suresh kumar
4. A.Maharajan 3, 5-7 221/2013 47/2021 18506/202 5 447, 201, 379,
420, 430, 434,
465, 467, 468,
471, 304(ii) IPC r/w 511, 109,
114 IPC and sec
3(i), 3(ii), of
TNPPDL) Act
1992 3(a), 4(a)
& 6 of Explosive
Substances Act r/w
120-B IPC
22 1. P.Palanisamy
2. P.Suresh kumar
3. P.Senthilkumar
4. A.Maharajan 9&13-1 5 411/2012 57/2021 18507/202 5 447, 201, 379,
420, 430, 434,
465, 467, 468,
471, 304(ii) IPC r/w 511, 109,
114 IPC and sec
3(i), 3(ii), 4 of
TNPPDL) Act
1992 & 6 r/w 3(a), 4(a) of Explosive
Substances Act
1908 r/w 120-B IPC
2. These petitions have been filed to call for the entire records relating
to Crl.O.P. Nos. 174/2026, 217/2026, 16252/2025, 16459/2025,
16460/2025, 16461/2025, 16463/2025, 16466/2025, 16468/2025,
16470/2025, 16471/2025, 16475/2025, 16476/2025, 16480/2025,
16485/2025, 18501/2025, 18502/2025, 18503/2025, 18504/2025, 18505/2025 and 18506/2025, 18507/2025 and quash all further proceedings arising therefrom insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
Sl.
No. Petition name Crl.RC. No Crime.No Spl.S.C.No Crl.M.P.No
1 1.selvi 1115/25 .228/2012 .21/2021 2344/22
2 1.Selvi
2.Chandralekha
3..sivaranjani 1116/25 .221/2013 .47/2021 2312/22
3 1.Selvi
2.Chandralekha
3..sivaranjani 1117/25 61/2013 12/2021 2318/22
4 1.Selvi
2.sivaranjani
3.Chandralekha 1119/25 487/2012 30/2021 2358/22
5 1.Selvi
2.Chandralekha
3..sivaranjani 1121/25 220/2013 16/2021 2317/22
Sl.
No. Petition name Crl.RC. No Crime.No Spl.S.C.No Crl.M.P.No
6 1.Selvi
2.sivaranjani
3.Chandralekha 1122/25 743/2012 42/2021 2356/22
7 1.Selvi
2.Chandralekha
3..sivaranjani 1123/25 107/2013 11/2021 2310/22
8 1.Selvi
2.Chandralekha
3.sivaranjani 1125/25 744/2012 43/2021 2352/22
9 1.Selvi
2.Chandralekha
3.sivaranjani 1129/25 411/2012 57/2021 2354/22
10 1.Chandralekha
2.sivaranjani 1130/25 222/2013 46/2021 2347/2022
11 1.Selvi
2.sivaranjani 1131/25 225/2012 37/2021 2349/22
12 1.Selvi
2.sivaranjani
3.Chandralekha 1132/25 234/2012 41/2021 2308/22
3. Facts of the case
3.1. Case of the Prosecution:
3.1.1. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners herein are
the accused in the various Special Sessions Cases and PRC case referred to above. In all cases there is a similar accusation against the petitioners and other accused. The sum and substance of the accusation is as follows:
3.1.2. Petitioners are granite quarry operators. In each case, the
license cum lease had been granted in favour of the granite quarry operator to do quarrying in the land in a particular survey number of the particular village. But they conspired together with the Government officials and engaged in illegal quarry operation in the non lease areas in the Government poromboke land either classified as water body, water channel, Government waste lands and private lands situated adjoining the lease areas and illegally gained total sum of Rs.7,237 crore and they had also caused damages to the Government land by digging or removing the survey stones by using the hazardous explosive substances and thereby blocked the water channels meant for the irrigation to agricultural lands and willfully acted in gross violation of the conditions imposed and in order to conceal the illegal activities they said to have filled up some of the quarry pits and obliterated the traces of the unlawful quarrying operations in various villages and therefore, large number of FIR’s were registered relating to the various quarries against the petitioners and other accused and after completion of the investigation numerous final reports were filed for the offences punishable under sections 447, 434, 379,420, 430, 465, 467, 468, 471,304(ii) of IPC r/w.109, 114, 511 of IPC and Section 3(i) (ii) & 4 of
TNPPDL Act, 1992 and Section 3(a) & 4(a) & 6 of Explosive Substance
Act, 1908 r/w.120(b) of IPC and the same were taken on file in various Spl.Session Cases and some of the cases are yet to be taken on file.
3.1.3. Further they have laundered proceeds of crimes by
acquiring a large number of immovable properties. Hence, the case was filed before the Court to proceed against the accused under the Prevention of Laundering Act, 2002 and the same were taken on file in various C.C on the file of Special Court for CBI Cases, Madurai. In the said proceedings, it is alleged that Rs.7,237 Crore of the properties are involved.
3.1.4. Pending trial, number of accused filed discharge petitions
and the same were dismissed and challenging the same, number of revisions were filed before this Court and the number of accused filed quash petitions before this Court directly and the common submissions are made in these quash petitions and Criminal Revision Petitions.
4. Submission of Thiru. Anandapadmanaban,senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners:-
4.1. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners the arguments
mainly based on the report of the High-Level Committee dated 31.03.2021.According to the learned Senior Counsel, the said report categorically discloses that no offence is made out against the accused in respect of the allegations contained in the final report, namely illegal mining and other allied offences.
4.2. It was submitted that, at the time when the final report was
filed, the prosecution had relied upon the valuation report prepared by Mr.Mohandas Committee for assessing the quantity of illegally quarried minerals and the consequential loss allegedly caused to the Government. However, in view of the subsequent developments, a High-Level Committee was constituted pursuant to the order dated 16.03.2015 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 16467 of 2015. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the said Committee submitted its report dated on
31.03.2021, and the report, having been prepared pursuant to the proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has a binding force. It was further submitted that the petitioners obtained a copy of the report under the Right to Information Act and that this Court ought to take judicial notice of the same while considering the present petitions. On the strength of the said report, the learned Senior Counsel prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners.
4.3. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that several
women accused, namely the wife, daughter and daughter-in-law of the principal accused, Palanisamy, have been unnecessarily arrayed as accused without any incriminating material or legally admissible evidence establishing their involvement in the alleged illegal mining activities. Therefore, he prayed for quashing of the proceedings as against them.
4.4. The learned Senior Counsel also contended that the
prosecution has primarily relied upon what was described as “parroted versions” of the statements of several witnesses recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. According to him, such stereotyped and identical statements lack credibility and cannot constitute reliable material to prosecute the accused. Hence, he sought quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the prosecution case is founded upon such mechanically recorded statements.
4.5. It was further argued that the inordinate delay in registration
of the FIR, without any satisfactory explanation from the prosecution, itself demonstrates that the criminal case has been instituted with mala fide intention, without any incriminating material, and on the basis of statements of planted witnesses. On these grounds also, the learned Senior Counsel prayed for quashing of the proceedings.
5. Submission of the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor :-
5.1. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that the argument of the petitioner based on the High-Level Committee Report of 31.03.2021, is fundamentally misconceived. According to him, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had never directed constitution of any High-Level Committee. The Supreme Court had merely affirmed the order passed by this Court in proceedings relating to the challenge against the recovery proceedings initiated in respect of the alleged illegal mining.
5.2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted
that the show cause notice issued by the District Collector for recovery of damages was challenged before this Court and thereafter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed the proceedings while granting liberty to the affected parties to raise all objections to the contents of the show cause notice before the competent adjudicating authority, namely the District Collector, during the determination of damages under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the proceedings relating to assessment and recovery of damages are entirely independent of the criminal prosecution. The subsequent Committee report, even if available, cannot have any bearing on the continuation of the criminal proceedings.
5.3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted
that the investigation has revealed large-scale illegal mining, extensive damage to Government property, excavation of massive pits endangering public safety, destruction of water bodies, fabrication of documents, forgery of official records and systematic Usurpation of the Government property. Upon completion of the investigation, sufficient oral and documentary evidence was collected and a comprehensive final report was filed, disclosing a prima facie case warranting framing of charges against all the accused.
5.4. It was further submitted that the cases have already been
taken on file as various Sessions Cases and involve allegations of illegal mining causing wrongful loss to the Government estimated approximately at
Rs.7,237.53 . At this stage, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot undertake an appreciation of evidence or conduct a mini trial to determine the correctness of the prosecution case, as such an exercise is legally impermissible.
5.5. With regard to the women accused, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that sufficient incriminating materials have been collected during the investigation. Several eyewitnesses have specifically spoken about their active participation in the illegal mining operations. Documentary evidence has also been collected demonstrating their involvement. More particularly, they were partners in the quarrying firm during the relevant period and they retired from the partnership only subsequently. Such materials are sufficient to proceed against them, and therefore the petitions deserve dismissal.Insofar as the contention regarding “parroted versions” is concerned, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. do not constitute substantive evidence. The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding stereotyped or identical versions relate to the appreciation of evidence during trial, where the deposition of witnesses is critically examined to assess whether they have been tutored. Those principles have no application at the present stage of considering a petition for quashing. Finally, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that every contention advanced by the learned Senior Counsel raises disputed questions of fact, which can be adjudicated only upon appreciation of evidence during the course of trial. No case has been made out warranting the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of all the quash petitions.
6. This Court considered rival submission made on the either side
and also perused the records and more particularly, typeset of papers furnished by the learned senior counsels Thiru.Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban, Thiru. R.John Sathyan, appearing on behalf of accused.
7. Discussion of the High-level committee report, dated
31.03.21:-
7.1. The principal accused, P. Palanisamy, along with his
associates, is alleged to have indulged in large-scale illegal granite quarrying over a considerable period. The prosecution case is that the accused not only carried on illegal quarrying beyond the leased areas but also trespassed into Government lands, Government poramboke lands, public water bodies, water channels and reservoirs, and extracted granite in gross violation of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the Rules framed thereunder, and the conditions of the mining leases.
7.2. It is the further case of the prosecution that the then IAS Officer, Shri U. Sagayam, conducted a surprise inspection and submitted a comprehensive report to the Government disclosing extensive illegal quarrying involving wrongful loss to the State to the tune of approximately Rs.23,000 crores. Pursuant to the said report, the then District Collector,
Shri Anshul Mishra, constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of Shri Mohandas to conduct a detailed assessment. The Mohandas Committee inspected more than eighteen villages in Madurai District and found extensive illegal quarrying by encroaching upon Government lands, water bodies, water channels and other Government poramboke lands. The Committee also found that the accused had excavated massive pits by using explosive substances in violation of the mining laws and had extracted granite from areas outside the leased boundaries to the extent of 4552034.3
CBM. The Committee ultimately assessed the value of the illegally quarried granite and the consequential loss to the Government at approximately Rs.
13178.49 crores.
7.3. Based on the findings of the Mohandas Committee, the
District Collector initiated proceedings under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 by issuing show cause notices for recovery of the loss caused to the Government. Simultaneously, based on complaints lodged by the Revenue Authorities and officials of the concerned departments, the investigating agency registered several criminal cases. Upon completion of investigation, final reports came to be filed alleging offences relating to illegal quarrying, criminal conspiracy, forgery, fabrication of records, damage to public property and other allied offences.
7.4. The petitioners challenged the show cause notices before this Court by filing writ petitions primarily contending that the assessment of the loss was arbitrary, that the valuation was erroneous, and that the District Collector lacked jurisdiction to initiate the recovery proceedings. The writ petitions were dismissed. The writ appeals preferred thereagainst were also dismissed by the Hon’ble justice Sanjay kishan kaul (as He then was)and Justice M.M.Sundresh, on 16.03.2015 in W.A.(MD)Nos.1470 to 1473, 1476 to 1490, 1492 to 1496, 1505 to 1521 of 2014 and the relevant portion of the order is as follows:-
“As rightly submitted by the learned Advocate General, the report of the Special Team is only a piece of evidence. In other words, it is not binding on the respondent. The respondent, after going through the report, merely initiated proceedings. It is only a prima facie view. It is not, as if, a decision has already been taken. A perusal of the orders impugned would show that the respondent has looked into the report and thereafter, called for explanation from the appellants. The show cause notices were issued to the appellants only to show cause as to why the report of the Special Team shall not be accepted. There is absolutely no indication in the notices that the respondent has predetermined the entire issue.
Section 18-A of the Act operates in a different sphere. It does enable the Government to investigate. However, it does not mean that the respondent cannot act upon any other material, which is available before him. In other words, dehors any report, the respondent can act upon any other material, which is made available to him in his possession. Thus, the report is only a material to initiate action. Therefore, the submission on the said provision cannot be countenanced.
5.3. The plea of jurisdiction has not been raised before the learned single Judge, as could be seen from the common order passed. Even otherwise, the respondent has only initiated action based upon the report, which inter alia states that the appellants have violated the law. The report also states that the terms and conditions of the lease deeds have been breached. Therefore, we do not find any error in the action initiated by the respondent under Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957.
5.4. Coming to the issue of the criminal action having been taken, we do not have any material on the same. The appellants have not raised this plea before the learned single Judge. Even otherwise, those 8 proceedings cannot be a bar to the proceedings initiated earlier by way of issuance of the impugned show cause notices.
5.5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for some of the appellants raised a new plea contending that as per the decision of the Supreme Court in THRESSIAMMA JACOB AND OTHERS VS. GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT
OF MINING AND GEOLOGY AND OTHERS, ((2013) 9 Supreme Court Cases 725), the minerals having belonged to the appellants, the respondent cannot take any action. The said submission raised for the first time cannot be countenanced. Admittedly, the lease deeds have been executed under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 on the request made by the appellants. The respondent has also initiated action under the said Act. Hence, the submission made in this regard is rejected.
5.6. It is settled law that power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is both extraordinary and discretionary. Such a power has to be exercised with circumspection while dealing with 9 a show cause notice. A show cause notice cannot be read on a technical ground, but on a reasonable one. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsels actually reiterated the settled position on the jurisdiction of this Court. Interference was made in those cases as final determination was made by the authority concerned even while issuing the show cause notice. Thus, those decisions are distinguishable on facts.
5.7. On a reading of the judgment, we find that the learned single Judge has dealt with all the aspects. Thus, we do not find any error warranting interference.
5.8. Though the show cause notices have been issued two years before, the appellants have been successful so far in dragging on without submitting their reply to the respondent. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to impose costs. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed by imposing costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each on the appellants payable to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court Campus, within fifteen (15) days from 10 today. The appellants are permitted to appear before the respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, submit their replies. Taking note of the delay caused, the respondent is directed to conclude the proceedings and pass final orders on merits within a period of two months thereafter, without being influenced by any of the observations made in our order.”
7.5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP No.16467 of 2015. By order dated 16.03.2015, the Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of the matter by granting liberty to the petitioners to raise all their objections before the competent authority in the proceedings relating to determination of damages. The relevant portions of the same is as follows:
“we grant three weeks’ time to the petitioners to approach the authority concerned, if it so desire, inter alia, taking up all such objections which are available to them, including the grounds raised in these special leave petitions. The authority concerned shall decide the lis between the parties without being influenced by the affidavit filed before the High Court or any of the observations made by the High Court. The authority concerned shall complete the entire proceedings within two months’ time from today”
7.6. It is seen from record, Hon’ble Supreme Court never issued
any direction to constitute a committee to assess damage and there was proceeding pending before the court to take action under PMLA, and against certain Government officials, who acted in collusion with the accused, subsequently misinterpreted the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and proceeded to constitute another Committee to re-examine the Mohandas valuation report. Moreover, the contention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted liberty or directed constitution of such a Committee is wholly misconceived. Prima facie, reliance placed upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to justify the constitution of the Committee appears to be a total misinterpretation of the order and cannot confer any legal sanctity upon the report. Upon the perusal of the initial inspection report it clearly reveals that, in the non-leased areas several quarry pits were found, indicating that quarrying operations had in fact been carried out. It also specifically notes the presence of physical traces and indicators evidencing that quarrying activities had been undertaken in those locations. However, a subsequent inspection report has been produced taking a completely contrary stand and appears to ignore the factual position already documented and it appears to have been prepared in an irresponsible manner that suppresses or obscures the true state of affairs. Therefore, the the report dated 31.03.2021 has admittedly never been accepted by the Government and Government constituted a Committee under the chairmanship of Hon’ble Dr.Justice P.Jyothimani (Retired Judge of this Court) to examine the issues in detail and assess the extent of damage caused so as to facilitate determination of appropriate compensation and recovery I.e.the said Hon’ble Judge was appointed to finalize “show cause notices” The relevant portions of the Report of the said committee reads as follows:
“3.In this regard, a meeting was held on 22.08.2022 headed by the Hon’ble Chief Minister to discuss the issues relating to the Granite quarries in Madurai. During the meeting among other things, it was decided to constitute a High Level Special Committee headed by the Hon’ble Retired Judge of Madras High Court with field experts as Members to analyse the reports of the Team-l, Team-II, Team-III and the relevant portions of the report of the Special Officer /Legal Commissioner submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras on 23.11.2015 and to give their opinion on the above reports to enable the District Collector, Madurai to finalize the show cause notices.”
7.7. The said Committee conducted field inspections, visited the
relevant locations, examined the available materials, and thereafter submitted its report to the Government. It is evident from the records that the said report remained under the consideration of the Government. In such circumstances, the heavy reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel on a report which was not accepted by the Government cannot be countenanced. Therefore, The learned Additional Public Prosecutor rightly contended that the said report dated 31-3-2021 never formed part of the final reports filed before the criminal Court and the final report had been filed longback and trial has been prolonged and said report obtained through the RTI ACT in the year 2022 had not accepted by government and hence, this court inclines to hold that if the accused seek to rely upon the report, they are at liberty to produce the same during the course of trial. The admissibility, relevancy, evidentiary value and probative face value of the report are all matters to be decided by the learned Trial Judge in accordance with law.
8. This Court has nevertheless perused the subsequent Committee Report only for the limited purpose of considering the repeated contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the report itself furnishes a valid ground for quashing the criminal proceedings .Even assuming that the Government ultimately accepts any one of the reports submitted by the various Committees for the limited purpose of determining the quantum of loss in the recovery proceedings, such acceptance would have no bearing whatsoever on the pending criminal prosecution. Likewise, even if the Government decides to abandon or modify the recovery proceedings, the same would not automatically result in the termination of the criminal case.
It is also evident from the materials placed before this Court that the petitioners have admitted ownership of granite stones stored in non-leased areas and have also admitted transportation of certain quantities of granite. Even in the disputed report relied upon by the defence, there is a categorical finding that the lessee had violated the conditions of the mining lease and had transported a substantial quantity of multi-coloured granite from the leasehold area without obtaining valid transport permits, thereby evading the payment of seigniorage fees and other statutory dues. According to the prosecution, the quantity so transported represents granite illegally quarried from non-leasehold Government land. The defence, however, contends, on the strength of a subsequent report, that the quarrying was confined to the leasehold area and did not extend into any non-leasehold land. Whether the alleged large-scale excavation of multi-coloured granite was carried out within the leasehold area and was transported without valid transport permit or from adjoining Government land is a matter requiring adjudication upon appreciation of evidence during trial and Such disputed factual issues cannot be adjudicated while exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
9. Further,According to the prosecution, the Committee was
constituted solely for the limited purpose of determining the quantum of damages in the recovery proceedings arising out of the show cause notices and not for determining the criminal liability of the accused. the subsequent Committee Report primarily deals with the methodology adopted for assessing the quantity of granite, the recoverable quantity, the marketable percentage and the corresponding valuation for the purpose of determining civil liability under the recovery proceedings. The main criticism levelled against the Mohandas Valuation Report is that the Committee had allegedly miscalculated the recoverable quantity by not properly assessing the marketable percentage of the granite. However, according to the learned public prosecutor ,the careful reading of the original valuation report would only indicate differences regarding the calculation of minerals, assessment of recovery percentages, quantification of damages, and estimation of the quantity of minerals allegedly involved and, even in the original assessment, deductions had already been made towards wastage and unusable material, and the final assessment was arrived at only on the basis of marketable mineral content. The Committee calculated the marketable quantity in accordance with the applicable Rules and thereafter applied the permissible deductions before arriving at the assessable value and consequential damages. Whether the methodology adopted by the Mohandas Committee is scientifically correct or otherwise is essentially a matter of evidence. Such issues can be effectively tested only during the cross-examination of the concerned officials and expert witnesses before the Trial Court. Unless the report is subjected to such evidentiary scrutiny, this Court cannot undertake an examination of the correctness of the calculations relating to the marketable quantity or the recoverable value while exercising its inherent jurisdiction.
9. 1.It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that, in
economic offences, the exact quantum of the wrongful gain or wrongful loss is not decisive factor for determining the existence of the offence. As already observed, in prosecutions involving economic offences, the precise quantum of wrongful gain or wrongful loss is not determinative of the existence of the offence itself. The exact computation of the illegally quarried material or its monetary value may have relevance at the stage of assessment of damages or, while imposing appropriate punishment, but it does not affect the existence of a prima facie criminal case. At best, it may affect the quantum of damages recoverable from the accused. It does not exonerate the accused from criminal liability nor does it negate the allegations of illegal quarrying.
9.2. At this stage, this court has to accept the said contentions of
the learned additional public prosecutor to dismiss these petitions without making any conclusive finding on the said submissions and accordingly, this Court is not inclined to accept the interpretation made by the learned Senior Counsel upon the Committee’s report. The report itself stands disputed by the prosecution and, in any event, was prepared for a limited and specific purpose unconnected with the determination of criminal liability. Consequently, submissions based solely upon the said report can not be accepted at this stage. The evidentiary value, correctness, and legal effect of such reports are all matters to be decided only during the course of trial, upon appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court. Therefore, from every perspective, this Court is unable to accept the elaborate submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel solely on the strength of the subsequent Committee Report. All such disputed questions regarding the correctness of the valuation, the methodology adopted, the quantity of granite allegedly quarried, the marketable percentage, the recoverable quantity, and the evidentiary value of the respective Committee Reports are matters to be adjudicated by the learned Trial Judge during a full-fledged trial upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence.
9.3. Looking from another angle, It is well settled that the State Government has no unilateral authority to withdraw a criminal prosecution. In the present case, the allegations pertain to large-scale economic offences involving illegal granite quarrying causing wrongful loss to the State, which, according to the cumulative final reports filed by the investigating agency, runs to approximately Rs.7,237.53 crores. Having regard to the magnitude and seriousness of the allegations, this Court is not inclined to accept the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel at this preliminary stage. If the prosecution seeks withdrawal of the criminal case, it can be done only by the Public Prosecutor independently in accordance with Section 321 Cr.P.C., with the order of the competent criminal Court. The decision whether such withdrawal should be permitted lies exclusively within the judicial domain of the Court and not within the executive discretion of the Government.
10. Accordingly, this Court finds no justification to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the subsequent Committee Report at this stage of the proceedings.
11.Discussion on the involvement of women :
11.1. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the wife,
daughter, and daughter-in-law of the principal accused, being women, have been unnecessarily implicated in the present case without any incriminating material deserves to be rejected at the outset. This Court has carefully perused the materials placed on record, including the documents relied upon by the parties. The materials prima facie disclose the active involvement of the said accused in the commission of the alleged offences. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, this Court has extracted hereinbelow the relevant portions of the statements of certain witnesses, which, according to the prosecution, clearly indicate their participation in the alleged illegal activities. The learned trial judge also considered the same in one of the discharge petition in the following manner. This Court has extracted the statement of one of the witnesses relied upon by the learned trial judge while dismissing the discharge petition:-
“25. In the case in Spl.S.C. 13/2021, six witnesses have been referred to as eye witnesses who would speak about the involvement of all the accused in the offences alleged by the prosecution. So far as the statements of the eye witnesses namely (L.W.10) Chellapandi S/o. Karuppaiah, (L.W.11) Maduraiveeran S/o. Ganesan, (L.W.12) Rathakrishnan S/o. Karuppaiah and (L.W.13) Shanmugam Pillai S/o. Nadarjan are concerned, the overt act against these petitioners-accused is as follows :
mth;fSld; godpr;rhkp. nry;tp. re;jpuNyfh. RptuQ;rdp. nre;jpyF;khh;. Rnu\F;khh;. KUNfrd;. njaN;te;jpud;. fhe;jp. jtr;nryt;k; MfpNahh;fSk; rh;Nt vz;.226/1B1 y; cs;s ej;jk; GwkN;ghf;F ,lj;jpy; mj;JkPwp Eioe;jhh;fs;. mUfpy; epd;W nfhz;oUe;j nry;tp re;jpuNyfh. RptuQ;rdp. MfpNahh; nghf;iyd; Mg;nul;lh;fshd jj;Jtuh[; fk;gk; MWKfk; MfpNahh;fis mioj;J Ntfkhf Nky;kz;iz mg;Gwg;gLj;Jq;fs; vd;W nrhd;dhh;fs;. nry;tp. re;jpuNyfh. RptuQ;rdp. MfpNahh; bg;gh; yhhpapy; cs;s kz;iz FthhpfF; ntspna cs;s kziz
GwkN;ghf;F ,lj;jpy; nfhl;l nrhd;dhh;fs;. So far as the statements of the eye witnesses namely (L.W.8) Pandi Selvam S/o. Manthaiyan and (L.W.
9) Muniyandi S/o. Veeran are concerned, the overt act against these petitioners-accused is as follows : mth;fSld; njhlh;e;J godpr;rhkp. nry;tp. nre;jpy;Fkhh;. RNu\F;khh;. re;jpunyfh. RptuQ;rdp.. njaN;te;jpud;. KUNfrd; MfpNahUk; me;j ,lj;jpw;Fs; mj;JkPwp
Eioe;jhh;fs.; When the 1st four set of eye witnesses state that these petitioners-accused asked Thathuvaraj and Kambam Arumugam to remove the topsoil, the next two eye witnesses would state that the petitionersaccused had trespassed into the Government puramboke land situated in 226/1A and 226/1C. As per the statement of the subsequent to eye witnesses namely L.W.8 Pandi Selvam and L.W.9 Muniyandi that the petitionersaccused had criminally trespassed into the Government puramboke land. As already held by this court trespass into a property in the possession of another person, to commit an offence will also become an offence as per the provision of law under section 447 IPC. As per the statement of the next set of four eye witnesses namely (L.W.10) Chellapandi, (L.W.11) Maduraiveeran, (L.W.12) Rathakrishnan and (L.W.13) Shanmugam Pillai the petitioners-accused had a directed to remove the topsoil and dump the same in the puramboke land. The above extracted statements would show that the all the three petitioners-accused have got specific overt act and have participated along with the other accused and so this court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioners-accused to discharge them from this case is not sustainable and therefore the discharge petition in
Cr.M.P. No.2314/22 in Spl.S.C. No.13/2021 is liable to the dismissed”
11.2. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor has therefore
rightly contended that sufficient materials are available to proceed against the women accused. Upon an independent examination of the records, this Court finds considerable force in the said submission and hence,the contention that the women accused deserve a different treatment merely on account of their gender cannot be accepted. The records reveal that the daughter and daughter-in-law of the principal accused were partners in the quarrying concern up to the year 2010. The prosecution specifically alleges that illegal mining operations were carried on during the period of their partnership. Their subsequent retirement from the partnership firm does not, by itself, efface the criminal liability, if any, committed during the period of their active association with the enterprise.
11.3. A similar contention came to be raised before this Court by
one of the co-accused, who contended that he had sold the property prior to the registration of the First Information Report and, therefore, could not be prosecuted. Though the said contention was accepted by this Court, the investigating agency carried the matter in appeal before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in criminal appeal no.496 of
2026 dated 20.01.2026 has held that where the materials disclose participation in the illegal quarrying operations during the relevant period, the subsequent transfer of the property or cessation of association cannot, by itself, constitute a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The said principle squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The said decision is as follows:
“Leave granted.
We have heard the learned AAG appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
We have also perused the impugned order passed by the High Court.
The respondent(s) were chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 304-Part II, 379, 420, 439, 434, 447, 465, 467, 468 and 471 read with Sections 109, 114,
511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for short, the ‘IPC’), Sections 3(i), (ii) and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 (for short, the ‘TNPPDL Act’), Section 6 read with Sections 3(a), 4(a) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 120-B of the IPC and Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act read with Sections 4(1), 4(2) (A), 4(3) and 21(b) (5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. By the impugned order, the High Court was pleased to quash the criminal proceedings qua the respondents on the premise that they cannot be held responsible for the illegal mining on the land as the land has been subsequently sold by them. The charge against the respondent(s) is that, from the year 2003 onwards, which is when the original lease had been granted to them, illegal mining of granite has been carried out by them over and above the permissible quantity on the leased land and also by encroaching into the adjacent Government land which was not even leased out to them. This aspect has not been gone into by the High Court.
We are not concerned with the sale made by the respondent(s) in favour of the other accused. We are only concerned with the question of illegal mining and the effect of it.
In such view of the matter, we are not in a position to sustain the impugned order by the High Court and the same is set aside. Thus, the criminal proceedings qua the respondents stand restored.
All issues are left open to the Trial Court to be decided without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned order which are only prima facie in nature.
The appeal stands allowed, accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
12. Accordingly, this Court is unable to accept the contention that
the wife, daughter and daughter-in-law have been falsely implicated without any supporting material. On the contrary, the materials extracted above, coupled with their admitted status as partners during the relevant period when the alleged illegal mining was in progress, furnish sufficient materials for their participation in the conduct of the quarrying operations and sufficient prima facie grounds are available for proceeding against them.
12.1. Apart from the allegations relating to illegal mining, there
are also specific allegations regarding their involvement in the subsequent acts constituting part of the same transaction. As already noticed, the prosecution case comprises several interconnected stages, namely: obtaining the quarry lease by furnishing false particulars and false promises; carrying on extensive illegal mining; causing damage to neighbouring lands and public properties by excavating deep pits posing serious danger to public safety; transporting and disposing of illegally quarried minerals; and thereafter attempting to screen the illegal activities through various subsequent acts.
12.2. The materials further indicate that these acts constituted a
continuous course of conduct extending until this Court passed orders directing the stoppage of quarrying operations, and, according to the prosecution, certain illegal activities even continued after the registration of the FIR.
12.3. In view of the continuing nature of the alleged offences, the
extent of participation of each accused can be conclusively determined only during a full-fledged trial. Such issues cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by conducting a mini-trial or by undertaking a meticulous appreciation of the voluminous records, which, in the present case, run into 1,200 pages of additional materials.
13. Discussion on malafide:
The submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the female
family members of the principal accused have been falsely implicated out of mala fides is also essentially a disputed question of fact. This Court has already noticed from the materials available on record that serious allegations have been levelled against such accused persons and that the prosecution has collected materials indicating their association with and participation in the affairs of the firms and entities through which the alleged illegal activities were carried on. Hence,At this stage, this Court also decline to consider the plea of mala fides. The investigating agency has collected substantial materials which, if accepted at their face value, prima facie constitute the offences alleged. Whether such materials ultimately establish the guilt of the accused is a matter for trial. Mere allegations of mala fides, in the face of prima facie incriminating materials, do not furnish a valid ground for quashing the proceedings.
14.Discussion on delay in registration of the criminal case:
14.1 The learned Senior Counsel laid considerable emphasis on the delay in registration of the criminal case, contending that such delay is unexplained and politically motivated, and on that basis sought quashment of the proceedings. This Court is unable to accept the said contention for more than one reason.
14. 2.Firstly, the materials on record prima facie indicate that the
alleged illegal mining activities were not isolated incidents but done calculatively with the alleged connivance of certain officials, who have also been arrayed as accused in the final report. The materials available on record prima facie indicate that, pursuant to an unholy nexus and concerted design, certain public officials, who were entrusted with the custody and protection of the mineral resources of the State, allegedly colluded with the accused and facilitated the continuation of large-scale illegal mining activities. The records further disclose that such activities continued notwithstanding the inspections and enquiries conducted by Thiru Sagayam, I.A.S., who was then entrusted with the responsibility of examining the irregularities in the mining operations.
14. 3.The allegations are not confined merely to illegal extraction
of minerals. They extend to the unlawful storage and stocking of the illegally quarried minerals in government lands, water bodies and other public properties, resulting in extensive damage to watercourses, ecological system and other physical features of the land belonging to the State, thereby causing substantial loss to the public exchequer.
14.4. In cases involving continuing offences, the rigour of delay
in lodging the complaint stands considerably diluted, as the cause of action is of a recurring nature.
14.5. Thirdly, upon perusal of the case records, including the
statements recorded during investigation, it appears that the accused persons are stated to be influential individuals, and the prosecution case suggests that the registration of the FIR was stalled by intervention of certain officials. Whether such assertion is true or not is again a matter to be tested during trial, and cannot be conclusively adjudicated at this stage.
14. 6.Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the magnitude
of the alleged illegal activities, the continuing character of the offences and the involvement of multiple persons, including public officials, the mere delay in registration of the criminal case cannot, by itself, be treated as a circumstance vitiating the prosecution. Moreover, where the offences alleged are grave in nature and punishable with severe sentences, including imprisonment for life, the mere lapse of time in initiating criminal action does not ipso facto render the prosecution invalid. The principle that “crime does not die with time” underscores the position that delay cannot be a sole ground for terminating prosecution at the threshold. .The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that delay in lodging the FIR, by itself, is not a ground to quash criminal proceedings, particularly in cases involving serious offences or continuing illegal activities and in this aspect, it is relevant to refer paragrph No.18 of the judgment in the case of Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt Ltd., vs. State of Uttarpradesh and others reported in 2021 (5) SCC 795:
18.The mere delay on the part of the third respondent
complainant in lodging the complaint cannot by itself be a ground to quash the FIR. The law is too well settled on this aspect to warrant any reference to procedents. Therefore, the second ground on which the petitioner seeks to quash the FIR cannot be countenanced.”
14.7. Therefore, this Court leaves the issue relating to the effect of
delay in registration of the case to be considered and decided by the learned trial Judge on merits in accordance with law. Accordingly, the contention based on delay delay, alleged false implication, or mala fides are matters for trial and all are stand rejected.
15. Discussion on plea of recording the statements of the
witnesses are merely “parroted versions”:
15.1. The contention advanced by the learned Senior Counsel that the statements of the witnesses are merely “parroted versions” and, therefore, insufficient to constitute the alleged grave offences, cannot be accepted at this stage of the proceedings.
15.2.It is trite law that statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not substantive evidence. Their evidentiary value is limited and they can primarily be used for the purpose of contradiction during trial. What ultimately constitutes substantive evidence is the testimony of witnesses recorded before the competent Court on oath. Therefore, any alleged infirmity, similarity, or uniformity in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot, by itself, be a ground to discard the prosecution case at the threshold.
15.3.The expression “parroted version” is ordinarily employed by Courts while assessing the credibility and trustworthiness of witness testimony during trial, particularly where there is an allegation of tutoring or an attempt to secure conviction through a concerted and unnatural reproduction of facts by multiple witnesses. Such an exercise necessarily involves appreciation of evidence and evaluation of witness credibility, which can be undertaken only after the witnesses enter the witness box and are subjected to cross-examination.
15.4.Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the statements
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. exhibit a degree of similarity, such circumstance, by itself, neither renders them inadmissible nor deprives them of all probative value at this preliminary stage. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not expected to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence or adjudicate upon the reliability, truthfulness, or credibility of witness statements. Whether the witnesses have been tutored, whether their versions are exaggerated, or whether the similarities are so unnatural as to affect their credibility are matters falling exclusively within the domain of the trial Court during a fullfledged trial.
15. 5.At the stage of considering a petition for quashing, the Court
is only required to ascertain whether the allegations, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of the alleged offences. Consequently, the plea that the prosecution case should be rejected solely on the ground that the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are alleged to be “parroted versions” is legally unsustainable.
16. DISCUSSION ON CONSPIRACY:
16.1. A holistic reading of the materials collected during
investigation prima facie discloses allegations of large-scale and continuing illegal quarrying operations carried on over a prolonged period pursuant to a concerted criminal conspiracy. The allegations encompass illegal extraction of minerals, destruction of public property, forgery of documents, cheating of the Government exchequer to the tune of approximately Rs.7237.53
Crores, and laundering of the proceeds derived therefrom.
16.2. The records further reveal that the investigating agency has examined several eyewitnesses in each case, many of whom have
specifically spoken about the participation of the accused at various stages of the conspiracy and have attributed distinct overt acts to them. At this stage, the statements of such witnesses constitute prima facie case connecting the accused with the offences alleged.
16.3. It is well settled that, in a charge of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B IPC, it is not necessary that every conspirator should have participated in each and every act constituting the conspiracy. Once participation in the conspiracy is prima facie established, the conspirator becomes liable for acts done in furtherance of the common design. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that proof of active involvement in every stage of the conspiracy is unnecessary and that participation in any part of the conspiracy, with knowledge of its object, is sufficient to attract liability under Section 120-B IPC.
16. 4.Finding in discharge petition:
In the revision cases, the learned Trial Judge, upon consideration of the materials collected during investigation, found sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused and accordingly dismissed the discharge petitions in the cases which are the subject matter of the present Criminal Revision Petitions. This Court has independently perused the materials relied upon by the learned Trial Judge and finds no infirmity or perversity in the conclusion reached. The materials presently available disclose a strong prima facie case warranting a full-fledged trial.
16.5. Likewise, insofar as the quash petitions are concerned, this Court finds that the prosecution has produced substantial materials, including eyewitness accounts and documentary evidence, alleging the involvement of the accused in illegal mining activities, forgery of records, cheating of the Government exchequer and causing damage to public property. The reliability, credibility and evidentiary value of such materials can be tested only during trial upon examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Similarly, the defence sought to be projected on the basis of disputed documents produced before this Court cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as such an exercise would necessarily require appreciation of evidence.
16.6. This Court cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., undertake a meticulous examination of the evidentiary value of the materials collected during investigation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that disputed questions of fact and issues requiring appreciation of evidence are matters falling within the domain of the Trial Court and not the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
16. 7.Further, the submission that even grave suspicion is
insufficient to frame charges is misplaced in its application. The established principle is that, at the stage of framing of charge, the existence of a strong or grave suspicion founded on the materials collected during investigation is sufficient to proceed against the accused. The sufficiency or adequacy of such material for conviction is a matter to be tested only upon full-fledged trial. At this stage, it is relevant to extract the following principles of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court emerging from 2010 9SCC 368:
“21. ….. (iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must by satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
….
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.
……
24. At the stage of framing of charge under Section 228 CrPC or while considering the discharge petition filed under Section 227, it is not for the Magistrate or the Judge concerned to analyse all the materials including pros and cons, reliability or acceptability, etc. It is at the trial, the Judge concerned has to appreciate their evidentiary value, credibility or otherwise of the statement, veracity of various documents and is free to take a decision one g way or the other.”
In the later judgments reported in 2019 (16) SCC 547 and 2023 (6) SCC 768 also Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the said principle.
17. Discussion on the Quash Petition under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002:
17.1. In respect of the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), Mr.R.John Sathyan, learned counsel appearing for the accused, made elaborate submissions by placing reliance upon the report dated 31.03.2021. Adopting the arguments advanced by Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban, learned Senior Counsel, he contended that the said report clearly demonstrates that no predicate offence is made out and, therefore, the prosecution for the alleged offence under the PMLA, including the charge of conspiracy, is liable to be quashed. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate submitted that the offence under the PMLA is an independent and distinct offence. According to him, the materials collected during the investigation disclose the existence of proceeds of crime and, therefore, the Court need not undertake an examination of the merits of the predicate offence while considering the present proceedings. He further submitted that the report dated 31.03.2021 does not form part of the records in the present proceedings and has no legal sanctity or evidentiary value for the purpose of deciding the petition.
17.2. Thiru.K.R.Laxman,The learned Standing Counsel also
pointed out that the petitioners had earlier filed a quash petition challenging the very same proceedings, which came to be dismissed about four months ago. According to him, the present petition is nothing but a clear abuse of the process of law, filed only with the intention of prolonging the proceedings and delaying the trial. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition.
17. 3.The petitioners/accused have filed the present Criminal
Original Petitions in Crl.O.P. (MD) No.174 of 2026 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.10 of 2026 pending on the file of the learned II
Additional District and Sessions Judge (Special Court for CBI Cases), Madurai, wherein they are being prosecuted for offences punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
17.4. The prosecution under the PMLA has been initiated on the
basis of the scheduled (predicate) offences registered against the accused in connection with large-scale illegal granite quarrying. According to the prosecution, the accused generated substantial proceeds of crime through the illegal quarrying operations and thereafter projected or utilized those proceeds for acquiring immovable properties and laundering the same in violation of the provisions of the PMLA.
17.5. It is not in dispute that several criminal cases have been
registered against the accused in respect of illegal quarrying activities. Out of those cases, the Enforcement Directorate has taken cognizance of the scheduled offences falling within the ambit of the PMLA and, after conducting investigation, has filed the complaint alleging commission of the offence of money laundering.
17.6.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners placed considerable reliance upon the report dated 31.03.2021 and contended that the said report demonstrates that no predicate offence is made out and, consequently, the prosecution under the PMLA is liable to be quashed. This Court is unable to accept the said contention. Once a complaint under the PMLA has been filed on the basis of a scheduled offence and the investigating agency has collected prima facie materials indicating that the properties in question represent the proceeds of crime, the burden contemplated under the provisions of the PMLA operates against the accused to establish, during the course of trial, that the properties were not acquired out of the proceeds of crime. Such disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
17. 8.The further submission of the learned Senior Counsel that
the absence of a predicate offence completely ousts the Special Court of jurisdiction to proceed with the prosecution is equally misconceived. The offence of money laundering under the PMLA is a distinct and independent offence. The Act is a special legislation intended to prevent the laundering of proceeds of crime. Once the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA are prima facie disclosed, the prosecution cannot be interdicted merely on the basis of the submissions advanced by the accused regarding the merits of the scheduled offences.
17.9. In the present case, the petitioners themselves are arrayed as
accused in the scheduled offences. Apart from the same, the Enforcement Directorate has collected substantial incriminating materials indicating that the petitioners were in possession of, and had dealt with, the proceeds generated from the alleged illegal quarrying operations. copious documents have been collected during the course of investigation, including records relating to acquisition of properties, financial transactions, and orders of provisional attachment passed under the provisions of the PMLA.
17. 10.The investigation further discloses that properties worth
several crores of rupees were allegedly acquired in the names of the
principal accused as well as other accused persons by utilising the proceeds of crime. The prosecution also alleges that there existed a concerted conspiracy to conceal, possess, project and launder the proceeds of crime through various financial transactions. These allegations are supported by documentary materials collected during investigation and undoubtedly
require a full-fledged trial.
17.11. This Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot undertake meticulous appreciation of the evidence or record findings on disputed questions of fact. More importantly, the learned Special Judge has already considered the materials produced by the Enforcement Directorate and, being satisfied that a prima facie case exists, has framed charges against the accused.
17.12. This Court has independently perused the complaint, the
accompanying documents, and the materials placed before this Court. Upon such consideration, this Court finds that sufficient materials are available on record indicating laundering of the proceeds of crime through acquisition of substantial immovable properties, investments in the names of the accused and utilisation of the proceeds through various financial transactions. Prima facie, the ingredients constituting the offence of money laundering are disclosed. this Court is satisfied that there are sufficient prima facie materials to justify the framing of charges and the continuation of the prosecution. Accordingly, finding no merit in the contentions advanced by the petitioners, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, the proceedings in C.C. No.10 of 2026 shall continue in accordance with law.
17.13. The contention that, on the basis of the report submitted by
the High-Level Committee, no predicate offence survives and consequently the proceedings under the PMLA must also fail, cannot be accepted. The Committee Report neither forms part of the complaint filed by the prosecution nor has it attained finality in the eye of law. Its evidentiary value remains disputed and cannot form the sole basis for terminating criminal proceedings at the threshold, further in earlier order this court dismissed the quash petition in Crl.O.P(MD)11941 of 2019 and relevant paragraphs are as follows:-
“20.Coming to the case of Selvi (A7) and Chandraleka (A8), who were partners in some of the firms, the firms have also been shown as accused. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to extract paragraph 13.7 and 13.8 of the complaint (paragraph 13.8 has been wrongly typed as 13.7 at page 37) : “13.7. It is humbly submitted that Smt.P.Selvi (A7), W/o.Shri.P.Palanisamy knowingly assisted in the business as Partner of M/s.PRP Exports, PRP Granites and M/s.PRP Granite Exports to conduct the business and in the capacity of partner did not participate in the business of the companies. Smt.P.Selvi admitted in her statement recorded under Section 50(2) and 50(3) of PMLA that she was house wife and admitted that she was partner of M/s.PRP Exports and PRP Granites from 2003 to 2010. The offence cases are registered against the partners of M/s.PRP Exports, M/s.PRP Granite by Madurai District Crime Branch Police Department and the same are under investigation. She (A7) was the Partner of PRP Exports and PRP Granites holding PAN number and her income from granite business were assessed by income tax department periodically. She can read and write in English very well and was aware that she was partner in the Granite business. Smt.Selvi (A7) had thorough knowledge about the movable and immovable properties acquired in the name of PRP Exports and PRP Granites. As such, she has knowingly assisted the other partners namely Shri.P.Palanisamy (A4), P.Senthil Kumar (A5) and P.Suresh
Kumar (A6) in acquisition, possession in the name of M/s.PRP Exports, PRP Granites and PRP Granite Exports and used the proceeds of crime to acquire immovable property to project and claiming it as untainted and therefore, Smt.P.Selvi (A7), W/o.P.Palanisamy has been guilty of offence of Money 16/28 Laundering by virtue of Section 2(1)(p) read with Section 3 of the PMLA and is liable to be punished under Section 4 of the PMLA. 13.8. It is humbly submitted that Smt.S.Chandraleka (A8), W/o.Shri.P.Senthil Kumar knowingly assisted in the business as Partner of M/s.PRP Exports, PRP Granites and M/s.PRP Granite Exports to conduct the business and in the capacity of partner did not participate in the business of the companies. Shri.S.Chandraleka admitted in her statement recorded under Section 50(2) & 50(3) of the PMLA admitted that she was partner of PRP Exports and PRP Granites from 2003 to 2010. The offence cases are registered against the partners of M/s.PRP Exports, PRP Granite by Madurai District Crime Branch Police
Department and the same are under investigation. She (A8) was the partner of PRP Exports and PRP Granites holding PAN number and she did not file her income tax return knowing very well that her income was within the exemption limit. She can read and write in English very well and was aware that she was partner in the Granite business. Smt.Chandraleka had thorough knowledge about the movable and immovable properties acquired in the name of PRP Exports and PRP Granites. As such, she has knowingly assisted the other partners namely
Shri.P.Palanisamy (A4), P.Senthil Kumar (A5) and P.Suresh
Kumar (A6) in acquisition, possession in the name of M/s.PRP Exports, PRP Granites and PRP Granite Exports and used the proceeds of crime to acquire immovable property to project and claiming it as untainted and therefore, Smt.S.Chandraleka (A8), W/o.P.Senthil Kumar has been guilty of offence of Money Laundering by virtue of Section 2(1)(p) read with Section 3 of the PMLA and is liable to be punished under Section 4 of the PMLA.” (emphasis supplied) A reading of the above appears that, Selvi (A7) and Chandraleka (A8) knowingly assisted in the business of the partnership firms, but, did not participate in the business of the companies.
21. Mr.A.Ramesh vehemently stated that apart from the three 17/28 partnership firms which are accused in this case, there is no other entity registered under the Companies Act to be categorized as a company.
22. Be that as it may, a further reading of paragraphs 13.7 and 13.8 of the complaint extracted above show that, Selvi (A7) and Chandrelekha (A8) were income tax assessees; they could read and write English very well; they were aware that they were partners in the granite business; that they had thorough knowledge about the movable and immovable properties acquired by the firms in which they were partners. Mr.A.Ramesh contended that mere knowledge of acquisition of properties is not tantamount to knowledge of commission of the offence under the PML Act.
23. Section 3 of the PML Act is indeed very wide. It begins with the expression “whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime … …”. Money laundering simply means, to project tainted money as an untainted one. The allegation in this case is, by illegal mining and by commission of a schedule 18/28 , the three firms in which, Selvi (A7) and Chandraleka (A8) were partners, generated Rs.2830.98crores with which they had purchased the properties listed in the complaint and projected them as untainted ones. In the teeth of the statutory presumption under Section 23 and the reverse burden under Section 24 of the PML Act, the Court cannot give a finding in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. that they did not know that they were indulging in money laundering. Ergo, this petition qua Selvi (A7) and
Chandraleka (A8) stands dismissed”
17. 14.Further, the offence of money laundering is a distinct and
independent offence. The proceedings under the PMLA do not automatically come to an end merely because developments occur in relation to one of the predicate offences, unless the very foundation of all scheduled offences forming the basis of the ECIR stands completely obliterated. In the present case, the ECIR is founded upon multiple scheduled offences arising out of different crime numbers. Not all predicate offences have been quashed. Consequently, the substratum of the prosecution under the PMLA continues to survive.
17.15. It is always open to the competent Court to consider the
impact of the ultimate outcome of the predicate offences at the appropriate stage, including the appellate stage, if circumstances so warrant.
17.16. This Court consciously refrains from undertaking a
detailed examination of the voluminous documents running into more than 1,600 pages relied upon by the parties. Any such exercise would inevitably amount to conducting a mini-trial at the stage of quashment and may prejudice the pending trial proceedings.
18. Directions :-
18. 1.The present case relates to allegations of large-scale illegal
extraction and misappropriation of natural resources, resulting in a quantified loss to the State exchequer estimated at approximately Rs.13178.49 crores. The prosecution case further alleges that such activities were carried out in connivance with certain public officials and with the support or protection of persons wielding political influence, thereby disclosing, prima facie, the commission of serious economic offences having substantial ramifications on public interest and public revenue. Pursuant to the report submitted in the year 2012, the competent authority issued show-cause notices under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, proposing recovery of the enormous loss of amount caused to the Government on account of the
alleged illegal mining activities.
18.2. Despite the direction issued by the Hon’ble Division Bench
of comprising the Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Kisan Kaul and M.M.Sundresh order dated 16.03.2015 to conclude the proceedings and pass final orders within a period of two months, the recovery proceedings have not reached their logical conclusion. The records placed before this Court prima facie disclose that, instead of expeditiously concluding the proceedings initiated in the year 2012 for recovery of the huge revenue loss caused by the illegal mining operations and the damage inflicted upon public properties, successive committees came to be constituted and no effective action appears to have been taken by the competent authority, namely, successive District Collectors, Madurai.
18.3. Without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the
recovery proceedings, this Court cannot ignore the inordinate delay in bringing the statutory proceedings to their logical conclusion. The materials placed before this Court prima facie indicate that the prolonged delay has been facilitated through an unholy nexus between certain former public officials, politicians and the accused, resulting in substantial prejudice to the interests of the State exchequer. The prolonged pendency of the recovery proceedings has also had the effect of delaying the criminal prosecution arising out of the very same illegal mining activities.
18.4. The criminal case has remained pending for more than
fourteen years. Many of the prosecution witnesses aged about 62 years and they have been awaiting the conclusion of the proceedings for an unreasonably long period namely, 14 years. The interest of justice demands that the criminal trial be concluded without any further delay. It also aligns with the principles repeatedly emphasized by the Hon’ble supremecourt that criminal process should neither be stifled nor allowed to become oppressive through delay through dilatory tactics of accused.
18.5. This Court takes the judicial notice of the fact that a new Government has assumed the office in the State of Tamil Nadu. It is well recognised administrative convention that upon the formation of the new Government, appointments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the special course are undertaken or reviewed in accordance with law. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu to constitute a Special Public Prosecution Team by appointing competent Public Prosecutors to effectively conduct the prosecution and to ensure that every endeavour is made to conclude the trial, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the cooperation of all stakeholders and the convenience of the trial court.
18.6. This Court further observes that it is open to the Government, if so advised, to ensure expeditious completion of the proceedings arising out of the show-cause notices issued under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, without any further avoidable delay, keeping in view of the fact that substantial public revenue is involved, stated to be in excess of Rs.13178.49 crores by way of penalty and other recoverable amounts.
18.7.The appellants/petitioners are at liberty to raise all grounds available to them in law before the Trial Court and to rely upon such reports, documents, and materials as may be legally permissible, subject to their admissibility and proof in accordance with law. The learned Trial Judge shall independently assess the evidence and adjudicate the matter strictly on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in the present proceedings, which are confined solely to the disposal of these petitions. This Court is constrained to observe that, almost on daily basis, it is confronted with cases relating to illegal mining and illegal quarrying. Such activities are not isolated incidents but appear to have continued unabated for several years, resulting in large-scale depletion of the State’s natural resources.
19.Conclusion:
19.1. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no merit either
in the Criminal Revision Petitions challenging the dismissal of the discharge petitions or in the petitions seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings. The learned Trial Judge was justified in concluding that sufficient prima facie materials exist for framing charges and proceeding with the trial.
19.2. Accordingly, all the Criminal Revision Petitions and Quash Petitions stand dismissed with the above directions. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to raise all available factual and legal defences before the Trial Court. All such contentions are left open to be adjudicated on the basis of oral and documentary evidence to be adduced by the parties during the course of trial.
[N.A.V, J.] & [K.K.R.K,J.]
24.06.2026
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No pal
To
1.The Additional District Court (Special Court of CBI Cases), Madurai.
2.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.
3.The Special District Court (Special Court to Deal with the Cases of Offences in Contravention of the Provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D and R) Act, 1957), Madurai.
4.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Melur.
5.The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai District.
6.The Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Madurai.
7.The Inspector of Police, Othakkadai Police Station, Madurai District.
8.The Inspector of Police, Malli Police Station, Virudhunagar District.
9.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
10.The Section Officer,
Criminal Section(Records), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. and K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
pal
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos,174 and 217 of 2026
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.16252, 16459, 16460, 16461, 16463,
16466, 16468, 16470, 16471, 16475, 16476, 16480, 16485,
18501, 18502, 18503, 18504, 18505, 18506 and 18507 of 2025 and Crl.R.C.(MD).Nos.1115, 1116, 1117, 1119, 1121, 1122, 1123,1125, 1129, 1130, 1131 and 1132 of 2025
Dated: 24.06.2026
