Madras High Court
M.Gopalakrishnan vs The Deputy Inspector General Of Police on 25 March, 2026
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
Crl.OP(MD).No.548 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ORDER RESERVED ON : 16.03.2026
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 25.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
Crl.OP(MD).No. 548 of 2026
and
Crl.MP(MD).No.585 of 2026
M.Gopalakrishnan ....Petitioner
Vs
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police
CBCID Department
No.220, Crime Investigation Department
Pantheon Road, Egmore
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 008
2.The Superintendent of Police
CBCID Madurai
Madurai District
3.Lakshmanan ....Respondents
(R3 is suo motu impleaded
vide Court order dated 12.01.2026)
Prayer:The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharathiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to issue direction directing the trial
proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2021 on the file of the III Additional District
Judge PCR Act Cases, Madurai to be kept in abeyance until the respondent
1/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:29 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.548 of 2026
No.3 files FIR and charge sheet as per the order made in Crl.OP(MD).Nos.
10189, 10201, 10249, 10882 & 11577 of 2025 dated 28.11.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian
For Mr.K.Dinesh
For Respondents : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 & R2
:Mr.P.Gunasekaran for R3
ORDER
The present petition has been filed seeking to issue a direction to the
trial Court in Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2021 on the file of the III Additional District
Judge (PCR Act) Cases, Madurai to keep the trial in abeyance until the third
respondent files F.I.R and charge sheet as per order of this Court in
Crl.OP(MD).Nos.10189, 10201, 10249, 10882 and 11577 of 2025 dated
28.11.2025.
(A).Facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows:
2.A criminal case was registered as against the petitioner in Crime No.
39 of 2020 on the file of the Melavalavu Police Station, Madurai District on
24.02.2020 wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.1 along with
four other named accused persons. The said F.I.R was registered on the
complaint given by the third respondent namely Lakshmanan. The said F.I.R
was registered for the offences under Section 147, 148, 447, 341, 294(b), 323,
2/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:29 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.548 of 2026324, 307 and 379 of I.P.C read with Section 3(2)(VA) of SC/ST (POA) Act,
2015.
3.A perusal of the above said F.I.R reveals that the petitioner and others
are said to have attacked the defacto complainant at about 17.30 hours on
24.02.2020 with regard to a land dispute. One Suresh had sustained serious
injuries in the said alleged incident. The F.I.R was registered at about 21.15
hours by recording the statement of the third respondent herein in the
hospital. The said F.I.R after investigation has culminated in filing of the
charge sheet in Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2021 and pending trial on the file of the III
Additional District Court (PCR Act) cases, madurai.
4.On the same date of occurrence at about 5.30 p.m, the present
petitioner herein ( arrayed as A1 in Crime No.39 of 2020) had alleged that the
father of the defacto complainant in Crime No.39 of 2020 and 12 others
including one Suresh had trespassed into his property and destroyed the
papayas trees and saplings. The petitioner herein had lodged a complaint
before the Inspector of Police, Melavalavu Police Station on 26.02.2020 for
which CSR receipt was issued in CSR.No.103 of 2020. However, CSR was
later closed by the police officials on the ground that the parties could not be
contacted and CSR remained pending beyond six months. Later the petitioner
herein had filed Crl.M.P.No.4339 of 2023 before the Judicial Magistrate,
Melur under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C seeking a direction as against the police
3/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:29 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.548 of 2026for registration of F.I.R. An order came to be passed by the Judicial
Magistrate on 12.07.2024 to conduct an enquiry and register an F.I.R, if any
cognizable offence is made out. The concerned police conducted an enquiry
and filed a closure report.
5.The petitioner herein had filed Crl.M.P.No.4054 of 2024 as a protest
petition. Since there was no progress in the protest petition, the petitioner had
prepared Crl.O.P(MD).No.11577 of 2025 seeking a direction to expedite the
disposal of the complaint. This Court by an order dated 28.11.2025 had
transferred the investigation to CBCID for fresh complaint and closed
Crl.M.P.No.4054 of 2024 which was pending on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate, Melur. Thereafter, the investigation got transferred to CBCID
Madurai Rural and an F.I.R came to be registered in Crime No.1 of 2026 on
19.01.2026 as against the third respondent’s father Kusalavan and 12 others
for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 427, 294(b), 323, 324
and 506(ii) I.P.C. Investigation is still pending.
6. In the meantime, one of the prime witnesses in Crime No.39 of 2020
namely Suresh was murdered and an F.I.R came to be registered in Crime No.
202 of 2022 on 18.12.2022. In the said F.I.R, the petitioner herein is also one
of the accused person. Citing the alleged involvement of the petitioner in the
4/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:29 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.548 of 2026murder of prime witness in Crime No.39 of 2020, the bail granted in favour
of the petitioner in Crime No.39 of 2020 was cancelled by the trial Court on
17.02.2025. Challenging the same, the petitioner herein along with other
co-accused had challenged the cancellation of the bail by way of Crl.A.
(MD).Nos.359, 346, 360 and 326 of 2025 before this Court. By way of an
order dated 09.04.2025, this Court had set aside the cancellation of the bail
order of the trial Court and restored the bail. A further direction was issued to
tag Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2021and Crime No.202 of 2022 (PCR.No.17 of 2023) to
be tried together by the Principal District Judge, Madurai and the concerned
Trial Judge was directed to take a call and order for joint trial of both cases.
This order was put to challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP.
(Crl).Nos. 6647–6650 of 2025. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to
set aside the order of joint trial and proceeded to restore the order of the trial
Court cancelling the bail of the petitioner and others. There was a further
direction to the trial Court to conduct trial independently, purely on merits
and in accordance with law.
7.Thereafter, the trial started in Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2021 before the III
Additional District Court (PCR Act) Cases, Madurai. PW1 was chief
examined on 03.10.2024 and he was cross examined on 17.02.2025,
04.03.2025 and 24.03.2025. Thereafter, PW2 to PW8 were chief examined
5/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:29 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.548 of 2026
and cross examined between 14.10.2024 to 26.11.2025. PW9 and PW10 were
chief examined on 15.11.2024 but they were not cross examined. PW11 to
PW14 were chief examined between 27.11.2024 and 26.12.2024. While the
case was posted for cross examination of PW1 to PW14, the present petition
has been filed on 05.01.2026 seeking a direction to keep the trial in
Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2021 in abeyance till a charge sheet is lad in Crime No.1 of
2026 pending on the file of CBCID, Madurai Rural.
(B).Submissions of the counsels appearing on either side are as
follows:
8.According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is a
case and counter case. The complaint in Crime No.39 of 2020 alleges that an
incident is said to have taken place at about 5.30 p.m on 24.02.2020. At the
same time, another occurrence is said to have happened as per allegation in
Crime No.1 of 2026 on the file of the CBCID Madurai Rural. The version
found in both the complaint cannot be true in view of the fact that if one of
the version is true, the others would become automatically falsified.
Therefore, both the F.I.R emanate out of a single transaction. Though an F.I.R
was registered immediately as against the petitioner, the complaint lodged by
the petitioner was closed and even after a direction was issued by the Judicial
Magistrate, only a closure report was filed by the police authorities.
6/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:29 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.548 of 2026
Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court for transfer
of investigation. Only thereafter, an F.I.R came to be registered as against the
third respondent herein and others for the incident that had happened at about
5.30 p.m on 24.02.2020 wherein the petitioner and others were attacked by
the third respondent and others.
9. The learned counsel had further submitted that when the F.I.R was
registered on the complaint of the petitioner much belatedly that should not
take away the right of the petitioner for having a simultaneous trial along
with Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2021. He had relied upon a Full Bench judgment of
this Court reported in 2024 SCC Online Mad 10644 : (2024) 5 CTC 1 (FB)
(T.Balaji and another Vs. State Rep.by the Inspector of Police, New
Washermenpet Police Station) wherein Paragraph No.68(B)(iii) and
contended that where a final report is filed in one and a closure report in
another case, the trial Court has to wait for the decision in the protest petition.
The learned counsel had also relied upon Paragraph No.69 (d) and contended
that the trial of case and counter case shall be held simultaneous before the
same Court as per guidelines set out in Paragraph No.68(B) of the said
judgment.
10.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further
submitted that as per Tamil Nadu Police Standing Order (PSO) 566, the
7/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:29 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.548 of 2026
authorities have to conduct an investigation with regard to a case and a
counter case and considering the rival version of the same incident. Any
failure to adhere to PSO 566, would vitiate the prosecution. He also relied
upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2001) 2 SCC 688
(Sudhir and others etc., Vs.State of M.P.ETC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that the cases arising out of a case and counter case in one
incident should be tried by the same Judge for consistency and the judgment
must be pronounced by the same Judge one after other. Hence, he prayed for
allowing the petition.
11.Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents submitted that the trial in Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2021 is in an
advanced stage. Therefore, in such circumstances, the request of the
petitioner cannot be entertained even as per decision of the Hon’ble Full
Bench cited by the petitioner. He had further submitted that the Hon’ble Apex
Court in SLP.(Crl).Nos.6647 – 6650of 2025 dated 19.12.2025 had
categorically held that the incident is distinct one and the trial Court shall
conduct a trial independently, purely on merits and in accordance with law.
Only after the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner has
approached this Court to stall the trial in Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2021.
8/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:29 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.548 of 2026
12.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had further submitted that
as per direction of this Court in Crl.OP(MD).No.11577 of 2025, the case files
in recordings of CSR.No.103 of 2020 have been handed over to CBCID and
they have already registered an F.I.R in Crime No.1 of 2026. No direction
was issued in Crl.OP(MD).No.11577 of 2025 to stall or stay the trial in
Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2021 till a charge sheet is laid by CBCID. Hence, he prayed
for dismissal of the petition.
13.The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant had
relied upon the Full Bench decision cited supra and contended that the
petitioner and other accused persons have participated in the trial in
Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2021 and it is in advanced stage and therefore, in such
circumstances, the question of keeping the trial in abeyance would not arise.
He further submitted that the provisions of 528 BNSS, 2023 (482 Cr.P.C)
cannot be invoked except in cases where there is a possibility of abuse of
process or in order to meet the ends of justice. In the present case, the
petitioner had made several attempts to stall the trial in Spl.S.C.No.25 of
2021. Both the occurrences have taken place in two different places and
therefore, this cannot be considered to be a case and counter case attracting
PSO 566 or the decision of the Hon’ble Full Bench. Hence, he prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
9/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:29 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.548 of 2026
14.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused
the material records.
(C).Discussion:
15.The primary contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner is that since Crime No.39 of 2020 (Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2021) and
Crime No.1 of 2026 arise out of a case and counter case, the trial in
Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2021 shall be kept in abeyance till a charge sheet is laid in
Crime No.1 of 2026. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Full Bench, the trial
has to be conducted simultaneously and it is for the trial Court to appreciate
the evidence and arrive at a finding as to who is the aggressor and who is the
defender. Therefore, in such circumstances, if the trial in Spl.S.C.No.25 of
2021 is proceeded independently, that would cause him great prejudice.
16.The petitioner herein is A1 in Crime No.39 of 2020 which has
culminated in filing of the charge sheet in Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2021. The charge
sheet came to be laid on 09.11.2020 and the examination of the witnesses
started only from October 2024. PW1 to PW8 have been chief and cross
examined on 26.11.2025. PW9 and PW10 have been chief examined on
15.11.2024, but they were not cross examined. PW 11 to PW14 were chief
examined on 27.11.2024 and 03.12.2024 and 26.12.2024. At this stage
without cross examined PW9 to PW14, the petitioner has approached this
10/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:29 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.548 of 2026
Court to stall the trial in Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2021.
17.The petitioner herein has filed Crl.OP(MD).No.7198 of 2020 before
this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to transfer the investigation in CSR No.
103 of 2020 pending on the file of Melur Police Station to any other police
office to be investigated simultaneously along with Crime No.39 of 2020.
When this petition came up for hearing, the police authorities informed the
Court that CSR.No.103 of 2020 was closed as ‘mistake of fact’. Therefore,
Crl.OP(MD).No.7198 of 2020 was dismissed as infructuous by this Court on
06.04.2023. This was the first attempt made by the present petitioner seeking
transfer of investigation in CSR.No.103 of 2020 for being simultaneously
investigated along with Crime No.39 of 2020.
18.The petitioner and other accused persons in Crime No.39 of 2020
were arrested on 05.08.2020 and later, the accused persons were enlarged on
bail by the trial Court on 09.09.2020. While the petitioner was on bail, he
along with others are said to have committed murder of the prime witness in
Crime No.39 of 2020 (Suresh) on 18.12.2022 which resulted in registration
of F.I.R in Crime No.202 of 2022. Therefore, the bail was cancelled by the
High Court in Crl.OP(MD).Nos.10559 and 10561 of 2020 on 31.03.2023.
The petitioner and others had approached the trial Court seeking bail and the
11/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:29 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.548 of 2026
same was rejected by the trial Court. Challenging the same, the petitioner and
others have preferred Crl.A.(MD).Nos.112, 185, 188 and 189 of 2024 which
was dismissed by this Court on 06.09.2024. Thereafter, the accused persons
had again approached the trial Court seeking bail but was rejected on
17.02.2025 and challenging the same, the petitioner herein and other accused
persons have filed Crl.A(MD).Nos. 359, 346, 360 and 326 of 2025 before this
Court and same was allowed on 09.04.2025 restoring the bail of the accused
persons.
19.In Paragraph No.34 of the said order, this Court has observed that
Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2021 shall be tried along with PRC.No.17 of 2023 which
arose out of Crime No.202 of 2022. This order was put to challenge before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP.(Crl).Nos.6647-6650 of 2025. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court by an order dated 19.12.2025 had reversed the order of this
Court and cancelled the bail and also directed that the Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2021
to be tried independently and not along with Crime No.202 of 2022.
20.The narration of the above said facts would make it clear that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held that the trial in Spl.S.C.No.25 of
2021 has to be conducted independently, purely on merits and in accordance
with law and in such circumstances, the request made by the petitioner herein
12/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:29 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.548 of 2026
again to stall the trial in Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2021 awaiting the charge sheet in
Crime No.1 of 2026 on the file of CBCID, Madurai Rural is only an attempt
to circumvent the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
21. The Hon’ble Full Bench in a decision reported in 2024 SCC Online
Mad 10644 ( T.Balaji & another Vs. State rep.by the Inspector of Police,
New Washermenpet Police Station, Chennai ) in Paragraph Nos.55, 68 and
69(b) has held as follows:
“55.The next question is whether a failure to adhere to PSO
566, ipso facto, vitiate the prosecution? It is well-settled that any
defect in the investigation does not automatically vitiate trial
unless a miscarriage of justice is shown (vide H.N Rishbud v
State, AIR 1955 SC 196). In some cases where a procedural
defect is shown at the earliest point of time, it would be possible
for the superior court to remedy the situation by setting aside the
final reports and issuing directions for proper investigation and
filing of the final report. However, where the case is at an
advanced stage a plea of non-compliance of PSO 566 cannot be
acceded to automatically unless a miscarriage of justice is
demonstrated. Whether miscarriage of justice has occurred or not
will depend on facts which must be assessed from case to case,
and we need say no more on this aspect at this stage except
observing that the directions contained in paragraph 35, would
ensure that such cases would be few and far between.
68. We expect the executive to take note of the aforesaid
position and effect necessary amendments to the PSO to bring it in13/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:29 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.548 of 2026consonance with the directions issued above.
B. For the Courts
(a) Pre-Cognizance stage:
i. While entertaining an application under Section 173(4)
BNSS 2023, the Magistrate shall ensure whether the complainant had
approached the superior police officers as set out therein.
ii. If the Magistrate is satisfied that the complainant had
approached the superior police officer as set out in Section 173(4)
BNSS 2023, he may proceed to take the application on file and deal
with the same under Section 175(3) BNSS 2023.
iii. Where a final report is filed in one case and a closure
report in the other case, the Magistrate will follow the procedure in
Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police, (1985) 2 SCC 537 : 1983 LW
(Cri) 72 (S.N.). Till a decision in the protest petition is arrived, the
inquiry or the trial in the pending case where the final report has
been filed shall be kept in abeyance.
iv. Where two final reports are filed in a case and counter case,
it is the duty of the Magistrate to scrutinize the final reports carefully.
If it is found that the final reports put forward inconsistent rival
versions of the same incident (ie., if one version is true the other must
necessarily be false), or where it is found that the IO has filed two
final reports mechanically without properly investigating and finding
out the true aggressor the Magistrate shall return the final reports
and direct the IO to come up with a definitive case.
v. In rare cases, where such filial reports are not screened out
at the level of the Magistrate, and cognizance has been inadvertently
taken, such orders may be challenged under Section 528 BNSS 2023
14/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:29 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.548 of 2026
in which case the orders of cognizance may be set aside, depending
upon the stage of the cases, with a consequential direction to follow
PSO 566.
(b) Post Cognizance and Trial in a case and case in counter:
i. If the Magistrate finds that the two final reports are rival
versions of the same incident, but both parties are found to have
engaged in acts of aggression etc., he may take cognizance of both
final reports. In such cases, the Magistrate shall follow the procedure
prescribed in Ekambaram v. Sundaramurthy and State, 1988 LW (Cri)
127, which we have extracted in paragraph 56, supra.
ii. If one case is exclusively triable by a Court of Session and
the other case is triable by a Magistrate, the Magistrate shall commit
both the case and counter case to the Court of Session for trial as
prescribed by Section 362 BNSS 2023
(Section 323 Cr.P.C.), who shall thereafter proceed in accordance
with the directions contained in paragraph 56 supra.
ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS REFERRED
69. In the light of the above discussion, the following are our
answers to the questions referred to us vide order dated 21.03.2024:
a……
b. The consequences of non-compliance with PSO 566 would
depend upon the stage at which such an objection is raised. It is the
duty of the Magistrate to screen out final reports which are filed in
inconsistent rival versions of the same incident ie., where one rival
version is true the other must be necessarily false, by returning with a
direction to follow PSO 566. Where the Magistrate inadvertently
takes cognizance, the error may be set right by the High Court under15/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:29 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.548 of 2026Section 528 BNSS, 2023 if the same is raised at an early stage. If,
however, the trial in such cases is allowed to go on and has reached
an advanced stage, a plea of non-compliance with the PSO will not
ipso facto vitiate trial unless and until a demonstrable case of
prejudice or miscarriage is made out.
22.In case, if the petitioner is of the opinion that Crime No.1 of 2026
and Crime No.39 of 2020 arise out of a case and a counter case and he was
fighting before various forum for registration of F.I.R on his complaint, he
should have taken immediate steps to keep in abeyance the trial in
Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2021 till F.I.R is registered on his complaint. However, the
petitioner and others have chosen to participate in the trial and out of 20
witnesses, already 14 of them have been chief examined. PW1 to PW8 have
already been cross examined before filing of this petition. In such
circumstances, it is clear that the present application is filed much belatedly.
23.As pointed out by the Hon’ble Full Bench, when the trial is in an
advance stage, a plea of non-compliance with PSO 566 cannot be raised and
the same cannot be considered to vitiate the trial. The petitioner is not able to
demonstrate that a prejudice or miscarriage would be made out in case if the
trial in Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2021 is not in abeyance waiting the charge sheet in
Crime No.1 of 2026 on the file of the CBCID, Madurai Rural.
16/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:29 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.548 of 2026
24.The prayer in the present petition is to keep the trial in Spl.S.C.No.
25 of 2021 in abeyance till the F.I.R and charge sheet are laid as per order of
this Court in Crl.OP(MD).Nos.10189, 10201, 10249, 10882 & 11577 of 2025
dated 28.11.2025. Admittedly, the F.I.R has already been registered as per
order of this Court dated 28.11.2025 in Crime No.1 of 2026 by CBCID,
Madurai Rural on 19.01.2026. In such circumstances, the trial in Spl.S.C.No.
25 of 2021 cannot await for completion of the investigation in Crime No.1 of
2026 especially when the trial in Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2021 is in the advance
stage.
25.In the light of the above said facts, it is clear that this is the third
attempt to stall the trial in Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2021. When the petitioner has
participated in the trial and it is in the advance stage, now the petitioner
cannot complain that he would be put to prejudice, if the trial in Spl.S.C.No.
25 of 2021 proceeds without waiting for the charge sheet to be laid in Crime
No.1 of 2026.
(D).Conclusion:
26..In view of the above said facts, there are no merits in the petition.
This Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
25-03-2026
17/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:29 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.548 of 2026
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
To
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police
CBCID Department
No.220, Crime Investigation Department
Pantheon Road, Egmore
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 008
2.The Superintendent of Police
CBCID Madurai
Madurai District
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai
18/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:29 pm )
Crl.OP(MD).No.548 of 2026
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
Crl.OP(MD).No. 548 of 2026
and
Crl.MP(MD).No.585 of 2026
25.03.2026
19/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:29 pm )