Madras High Court
Y.Gnana Ganesh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 July, 2026
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar, S.Srimathy, R.Vijayakumar
Crl.OP(MD).Nos.21999 of 2024 and 573 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ORDER RESERVED ON : 17.06.2026
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 03.07.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
Crl.OP(MD).Nos. 21999 of 2024 & 573 of 2025
and Crl.MP(MD).Nos.13641 of 2024 & 371 of 2025
Crl.OP(MD).No.21999 of 2024
1.Y.Gnana Ganesh
2.T.Muruganantham ....Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 & 4
Vs
1.State of Tamil Nadu Represented by
The Inspector of Police
Anna Nagar Police Station
Madurai City
Crime No.708 of 2024
2.Ms.Hema Mala
Inspector of Police
AHRU/ACTU
Madurai City ....Respondent No.2/Defacto Complainant
Crl.OP(MD).No.573 of 2025:
1.S.Prem Kumar
2.S.Ponraj ....Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 an 2
Vs
1/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD).Nos.21999 of 2024 and 573 of 2025
1.State Represented by
Inspector of Police
Anna Nagar Police Station
Madurai City
Crime No.708 of 2024 ....Respondent No.1
2.Ms.Hema Mala
Inspector of Police
AHRU/ACTU
Madurai City ...Respondent No.2/Defacto Complainant
Prayer in Crl.OP(MD).No.21999 of 2024:The Criminal Original Petition
filed under Section 528 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023, to
call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.
708 of 2024 dated 04.11.2024 on the file of the Respondent No.1 and quash
the same as illegal as against the petitioners.
Prayer in Crl.OP(MD).No.573 of 2025:The Criminal Original Petition filed
under Section 528 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023, to call
for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.708 of
2024 dated 04.11.2024 on the file of the Respondent No.1 and quash the
same as illegal as against the petitioners.
(In both petitions)
For Petitioners : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
Senior Counsel for M/s.Roy & Roy Associates
For Respondents : Mr.P.Samuel Gunasingh
Government Advocate (Crl.side) for R1
2/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD).Nos.21999 of 2024 and 573 of 2025
COMMON ORDER
These two petitions have been filed by Accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime
No.708 of 2024 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Anna Nagar Police
Station, Madurai City seeking to quash the F.I.R dated 04.11.2024 wherein
they are alleged to have committed offences under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(2)(c),
5(1)(d), 6(1)(b) of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956 (ITP Act).
(A).Factual Matrix:
2.A perusal of the F.I.R reveals that on receipt of secret information on
04.11.2024 at about 1.45 p.m, the Special Sub Inspector of Police and two
lady Head-Constables, after obtaining permission from the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, have conducted a search in a Spa at Anna Nagar,
Madurai. During search, it was found that two victim girls from Nagaland
and Assam where found in half-nude position in two rooms where there were
no facilities for conducting massage. There were no proper lighting and the
rooms were kept locked from inside at the time of inspection. When it was
enquired with the ladies found there, they informed that, under the guise of
engaging them in the profession of massage, they have been brought here and
compelled to indulge in prostitution.
3.Accused Nos.1 and 2 are the manager and the receptionist of the Spa
3/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD).Nos.21999 of 2024 and 573 of 2025and Accused Nos.3 and 4 are the partners who are running the Spa.
Challenging the said F.I.R, the present petitions have been filed seeking to
quash the same.
(B).Contentions of the learned counsel appearing on either side:
4.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted
that the search was not conducted by the Special Police Officer as
contemplated under Section 13 of ITP Act. The search have been conducted
by a regular Police, is clearly without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be
set aside.
5.The learned Senior Counsel had further contended that as per Section
15(2) of ITP Act, before making a search under Section 15(1), the Special
Police Officer has to call for two or more respectable inhabitants (at least one
of whom shall be a woman) of that locality to attend and witness the search.
However, in the present case admittedly two or more respectable inhabitants
have not accompanied before the officials. The said procedure being
mandatory in nature and the search having been conducted in violation of the
statutory provisions, the F.I.R registered on the basis of the said search is
liable to be quashed.
6.The learned Senior Counsel had relied upon a judgment of this Court
reported (2019) 1 CTC 385 ( Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini Vs. K.Natarajan,
4/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD).Nos.21999 of 2024 and 573 of 2025
Inspector of Police and others) wherein in paragraph Nos. 27 and 28, this
Court was pleased to point out that the procedure contemplated under Section
15(2) is mandatory and having not been followed was pleased to quash the
proceedings.
7.The learned Senior Counsel has also relied upon the following
decisions rendered by this Court:
(i)Crl.OP(MD).No.15863 of 2020 ( Mathan Franko and
others Vs.State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by the Inspector of Police,
Nesamony Nagar Police Station, Kanyakumari District and
another) dated 03.04.2024;
(ii)Crl.OP(MD).No.3657 of 2024 ( B.Manju and others
Vs.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by the Inspector of Police,
Arlvoimozhi Police Station, Kanyakumari District) dated
11.09.2025;
(iii)Crl.OP(MD).No.18737 of 2025 (Lawrance Vs. State of
Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Vadaseri Police
Station, Nagercoil) dated 28.10.2025;
(iv)Crl.OP(MD).No.17554 of 2025 ( Palaniyappa Perumal
Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by the Inspector of Police,
Perumalpuram Police Station, Tirunelveli District and another)
5/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD).Nos.21999 of 2024 and 573 of 2025
dated 03.11.2025;
(v)Crl.OP(MD).No.15586 of 2025 (Jeyasri Vs. The State of
Tamil Nadu, Rep.by the Inspector of Police, Karaikudi North
Police Station, Sivagangai District ) dated 05.11.2025;
8.The learned Senior Counsel had also relied upon a
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2026 INSC 609
(Prajwala Vs. Union of India and others) dated 29.05.2026
especially Paragraph No.362 Clause (b) (Initiation of rescue):
Clause (x) and submitted that the mandatory nature of Section
15(2) of ITP Act has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
and contended that in the present case, admittedly there being
violation of the procedure contemplated under Section 15(2) of
ITP Act, an F.I.R is liable to be quashed.
9.The learned Senior Counsel had also relied upon a Division Bench
Judgment of this Court in W.A.No.457 of 2020 ( K.Natraja Vs. Ms.Kadek
Dwi Ani Rasmini and others) dated 18.07.2024 wherein the judgement
reported in (2019) 1 CTC 385 has been confirmed. He specifically pointed
out Paragraph Nos.14 and 15 of the said Division Bench Judgement in
support of his contention.
10.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners had also
6/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD).Nos.21999 of 2024 and 573 of 2025
relied upon the affidavit of five rescued victim girls, all dated 24.12.2024 and
submitted that the police officials have threatened and obtained the statement
from them on the date when search was conducted. In the said affidavit, it is
stated that their signature was obtained in a statement which was in a
language unknown to them and they were unable to understand and read and
write Tamil language. By coercive way, they obtained signature from them.
Relying upon the said affidavit, the learned Senior Counsel had contended
that the statement of the alleged victim girls under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C has
been obtained by force and they have been threatened to sign the statement
which was prepared in a language not known to them and therefore, it is clear
that the entire allegation in the F.I.R is completely false and a case has been
foisted as against the Spa. Hence, he prayed for quashing of the F.I.R as
against all the accused persons.
11. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing
for the respondent submitted that after receiving secret information about the
prostitution business in the premises, under the guise of running a massage
centre, three lady police officers have conducted search and found that there
were not indication of conducting massage and rooms were in a locked
condition and the victim girls were found half-nude position when the Police
Officers knocked the doors.
7/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD).Nos.21999 of 2024 and 573 of 2025
12.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) had further submitted
that all the victims were having knowledge in English and the statements
were recorded in English. The present affidavit obtained by the accused
persons from the victim girl after registration of F.I.R would not have any
evidenciary value. Based upon the said affidavit, the F.I.R cannot be quashed.
13.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the
respondents had further submitted that under G.O.Ms.618, Social Welfare
Department, dated 13.04.1987, the State Government has pointed out every
police officers not below the rank of the Inspector of Police to be the Special
Police Officers under Section 13 of the ITP Act. In the present case, only the
Inspector of Police along with three other lady Police Officers have
conducted the search and therefore, there is no violation of Section 13 of ITP
Act.
14.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) had also relied upon
the two decisions of this Court in Crl.OP(MD).No.133 of 2022 ( Arun Vs.
State represented by the Inspector of Police, Ganesh Nagar Police Station,
Pudukkottai District and another) dated 25.04.2022 and Crl.OP.No.922 of
2021 (Hema Jwaalini and others Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai
City Police Commissionerate,Vepery, Chennai and others) dated 29.04.2022
wherein two Learned Judges of this Court have taken note of the said
8/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD).Nos.21999 of 2024 and 573 of 2025
Government Order and have dismissed the quash petitions, rejecting the
contentions that the Special Police Officer has not conducted search.
15.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) had also relied upon
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1969 (1) SCC 43 ( Bai
Radha Vs. The State of Gujarat) especially the last paragraph and contented
that any violation of Sections 15(1) and 15(2) of ITP Act, would not vitiate
the proceedings unless and until some prejudice is shown to have been
caused to the accused person. According to him, this Judgment was not
brought to the notice of the other Hon’ble Benches which have dealt with
similar cases.
16.According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), the
alleged prejudice due to non-observance of Section 15(2) of ITP Act could
be proved only during trial and the said ground cannot be a subject matter of
the quash petition. He had also contended that Section 15(2) of ITP Act has
been legislated only for the purpose safeguarding the privacy of the victim
ladies. Even assuming that there was any violation, the same cannot be taken
advantage of by the accused person and seek quashing of the F.I.R or the
charge sheet on the said ground.
17.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) had further contended
that the procedure under Section 15(2) of the Act has to be followed only if
9/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD).Nos.21999 of 2024 and 573 of 2025
the premises to be searched is a residential premises. He relied upon
Paragraph No.30 of the Order in Crl.OP.No.922 of 2021 dated 29.04.2022
and Paragraph No.3 of the Order in Crl.OP.No.6295 of 2024 dated
16.07.2024 in support of his contention. Therefore, according to him, when a
commercial premises like that of Spa is being searched following the said
procedure would not arise.
18.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) had further submitted
that the petitioners have applied for No Objection Certificate from the
Superintendent of Police and the same was rejected in the Month of May
2024 and the writ petition filed against the same is pending. The search has
been conducted in the Month of November 2024. Therefore, it is clear that
without obtaining any NOC from the jurisdictional police, the Spa has been
conducted by the petitioners herein and in such circumstances, the petitioners
cannot rely upon any judgment of this Court. Hence, he prayed for dismissal
of the petition.
19.Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the
material records.
(C).Discussion.
20.Based upon the submissions made on either side, the following
issues arise for consideration;
10/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD).Nos.21999 of 2024 and 573 of 2025
a)Whether the regular Police can be considered to be a
Special Police Officer as contemplated under Section 13 of the
ITP Act to conduct a search or arrest without warrant as
contemplated under Sections 14 and 15 of the ITP Act?
b)Whether it is mandatory to follow the safeguard under
Section 15(2) of ITP Act in respect of a search conducted in a
commercial premises.?
c)If the procedure contemplated under Section 15(2) of
ITP Act is mandatory, whether non-observance or non-
compliance of the same would vitiate the registration of F.I.R or
the charge sheet?
d)Whether affidavit filed on behalf of the victims after
registration of F.I.R can be taken into consideration?
21.The Special Police Officer as contemplated under Section 13 of
ITP Act:
(i).The Tamil Nadu Government had issued G.O.Ms.618, Social
Welfare Department, dated 13.04.1987 exercising their powers under Section
13 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956
thereby appointing every police officer not below the rank of Inspector of
Police to be the Special Police Officers for dealing with the offences under
11/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD).Nos.21999 of 2024 and 573 of 2025Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Under the said order, the
Government has further pointed out that every Police Officer (including a
women Police Officer wherever necessary) not below the rank of
Jurisdictional Subordinate Police Officer to assist the Special Police Officer
concerned.
22.In the light of the above said Government Order, it is clear that the
Inspector of Police has been appointed as Special Police Officer under
Section 13 of ITP Act. In the present case, a perusal of the F.I.R reveals that
the Inspector of Police, Anti-Human and Child Trafficking Unit (AHTU),
Madurai City along with the lady Special Sub Inspector and two lady Head-
Constables had conducted a search in the Spa. In such circumstances, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the police officials having jurisdiction
alone have conducted the search and therefore, the ground raised in these
lines by the learned Senior Counsel, cannot be countenanced.
23. Whether procedure contemplated under Section 15(2) is
mandatory in respect of commercial premises:
(i).Sections 15(1) and 15(2) of Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956 are extracted hereunder for better
appreciation:
“15.Search without warrant.—(1).Notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law for the time being in force,
whenever the special police officer [or the trafficking police12/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD).Nos.21999 of 2024 and 573 of 2025officer, as the case may be], has reasonable grounds for
believing that an offence punishable under this Act has been or
is being committed in respect of a [person] living in any
premises, and that search of the premises with warrant cannot be
made without undue delay, such officer may, after recording the
grounds of his belief, enter and search such premises without a
warrant.
(2) Before making a search under sub-section (1), the
special police officer [or the trafficking police officer, as the
case may be,] shall call upon two or more respectable
inhabitants (at least one of whom shall be a woman) of the
locality in which the place to be searched is situate, to attend
and witness the search, and may issue an order in writing to
them or any of them so to do:
[Provided that the requirement as to the respectable
inhabitants being from the locality in which the place to be
searched is situate shall not apply to a woman required to attend
and witness the search.]”
(iii).Our High Court in a judgment reported in (2015) 1 CTC 702
(Mr.S.Rangaraj & others V.s The Commissioner of Police Chennai City,
Chennai and others) while considering Section 15 was pleased to observe as
follows:
Paragraph No.28 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
“28.A careful look at the provisions of Section 15 would
show that a Special Police Officer or a Trafficking Police Officer13/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD).Nos.21999 of 2024 and 573 of 2025can enter upon any premises and cause a search without warrant,
only after satisfying the following:
(i)he should have reasonable grounds for believing that an
offence punishable under this Act has been or is being
committed;
(ii)he must believe that such an offence is committed in
respect of a person living in the premises;
(iii)he should believe that the search of the premises with
warrant cannot be made without undue delay; and
(iv)he must record the grounds of his belief before entering
the premises;”
(iv).Another learned Judge of this Court while considering Section
15(2) of ITP Act in a judgment reported in 2022 SCC Online Mad 1960
(Hema Jwaalini and others Vs.Commissioner of Police and others) in
Paragraph Mno.30 has held as follows:
“30.The nature of place under search viz., residential or
commercial has got some impact in compliance of Section 15(2)
of the Act and when it happens to a residential place, the
safeguard provided by Section 15(2) of the Act comes into play
whereas, in the case on hand, the place where the search was
conducted is not a residential one and it is only a commercial
place. “
(v).Another learned Judge of this Court in a judgment rendered in
Crl.OP.No.6295 of 2024 (Balaji Vs. State Rep.by the Inspector of Police, E-1
14/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD).Nos.21999 of 2024 and 573 of 2025Mylapore Police Station, Chennai) dated 16.07.2024 in Paragraph No.3 has
held as follows:
“3.It is contending that the mandatory provision of Section
15(1) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 not been
complied with, the present petition is filed to quash the FIR. The
protection from conducting search or raid of a living place if any
person alone is been restricted under Section 15(1) of Immoral
Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and not a commercial premises…..”
24.A careful perusal of Section 15(1) of the Act reveals that when a
Special Police Officer has reasonable grounds for believing an offence
punishable under ITP Act is being committed in respect of a person living in
any premises, they can conduct search without warrant after recording his
grounds of belief. Section 15(2) points out that before making a search under
Section 15(1), the special police officer shall call upon two or more
respectable inhabitants (at least one of whom shall be a woman) of that
locality to attend and witness the search. Therefore, it is clear that the
procedure contemplated under Section 15(2) of the Act for calling upon two
or more respectable inhabitants to attend the witness search would arise, only
if the premises referred to under Section 15(1) of the Act is going to be
searched. The premises referred to under Section 15(1) of the Act is a place
where a person living. Hence, it is clear that the procedure contemplated
15/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD).Nos.21999 of 2024 and 573 of 2025
under Section 15(2) of the Act would apply only with regard to the residential
premises and not to a commercial premises. This finding is supported by the
decisions of this Court by three other Learned Judges cited supra.
25.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in 1969 (1)
SCC 43 ( Bai Radha Vs. The State of Gujaraj) while considering Section
15(1) and 15(2) of ITP Act, in the final paragraph has held as follows:
“In conclusion, it may be observed that the
investigating agencies cannot and ought not to show
complete disregard of such provisions as are contained in
sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 15 of the Act. The
legislature in its wisdom provided special safeguards owing
to the nature of the premises which have to be searched
involving inroads on the privacy of citizens and handling of
delicate situations in respect of females. But the entire
proceedings and the trial do not become illegal and vitiated
owing to the non-observance of or non-compliance with the
direction contained in the aforesaid provisions. The court,
however, has to be very careful and circumspect in weighing
the evidence where there has been such a failure on the part
of the investigating agency but unless and until some
prejudice is shown to have been caused to the accused
person or persons the conviction and the sentence cannot be
set aside…..”
26.In the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited supra, it has
been pointed out that the legislature in its wisdom provided special
16/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD).Nos.21999 of 2024 and 573 of 2025
safeguards owing to the nature of the premises which have to be searched
involving inroads on the privacy of citizens and handling of delicate
situations in respect of females.
27.The object and purpose of Section 15(2) of ITP Act is to protect the
privacy of the victim and to prevent conducting avoidable searches in the
residential premises which may bring disrepute to the inmates of the building
in that locality. The said provision is not in any way meant to protect the
rights of the accused persons who are found to be involving in procuring the
victim girl or conducting a brothel house. Therefore, when a purposive
interpretation is given to Section 15(2) r/w Section 15(1) of ITP Act, the
persons accused of the offence under ITP Act would not be entitled to raise
such a defence, especially for the purpose of quashing of the F.I.R or the
charge sheet on the said ground.
28.Whether non-observance of procedure contemplated under
Section 15(2) of ITP Act could be a ground for quashing of the F.I.R or
the charge sheet.?
(i).The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bai Radha case cited supra has
pointed out that the entire proceedings or trial do not become illegal or
vitiated owing to non-observance of or non-compliance of Section 15(1) and
15(2) of the Act, but the trial Court has to carefully consider the case of
failure to follow Sections 15(1) and 15(2) of ITP Act.
17/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD).Nos.21999 of 2024 and 573 of 2025
(ii).The Hon’ble Supreme Court had further pointed out that unless and
until some prejudice is shown to have been caused to the accused person, the
conviction or the sentence cannot be set aside. Therefore, it is clear that the
prejudice that is alleged to have been caused to the accused person due to
non-observance of Section 15(2) of the Act has to be established and the
same can be done only during trial. In such circumstances, the contention of
non-observance of Section 15(2) of ITP Act cannot be raised as a ground for
quashing of the F.I.R or the charge sheet.
29.Affidavit of the victims:
(i).A stereotyped affidavits sworn by the victim girls rescued from the
Spa premises have been filed wherein the victim girls have stated that the
statements were recorded in a language unknown to them and they were
threatened by the police to sign the statement. As rightly pointed out by the
learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), the statement of the victim girls has
already been recorded by the Jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C. In such circumstances, the affidavit now annexed to the quash
petition, cannot be relied upon to disbelieve the case of the prosecution and
the same could only be subject matter of trial.
30.The Judgements cited by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioners have not taken into consideration the Judgment of the Three
18/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD).Nos.21999 of 2024 and 573 of 2025
Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited supra, (Bai Radha‘s case)
and therefore, this Court is not inclined to follow the other judgments cited
by the petitioners, wherein Bai Radha‘s case has not been brought to their
notice.
31.No Objection Certificate from police and licence from local body:
(i).As per Rule 299 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023
(which came into force on 12.04.2023), the petitioner is bound to obtain a
licence for running a Spa. As contemplated Rule 299(6), No Objection
Certificate from the Commissioner of Police, having jurisdiction over the area
has to be obtained before granting of any licence. In the present case, the
petitioner had applied for No Objection Certificate to the jurisdictional police
and the same was rejected in May 2024. Challenging the same, the petitioners
had preferred a writ petition and the same is pending. However, the petitioner
has continued to run the Spa without NOC from the police or a licence from
the concerned local body. The search has been conducted in November 2024,
when Spa was conducted without any licence or NOC from the respondent
police. In such circumstances, the judgments relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioners would not come to the rescue, wherein the Spas
were conducted after obtaining proper licence.
19/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD).Nos.21999 of 2024 and 573 of 2025
(D).Conclusion:
32.In view of the above said deliberations, there are no merits in the
petitions and both the Criminal Original Petitions stand dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
03.07.2026
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
To
1.The Inspector of Police
Anna Nagar Police Station
Madurai City
Crime No.708 of 2024
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai
20/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD).Nos.21999 of 2024 and 573 of 2025
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
Crl.OP(MD).Nos. 21999 of 2024 & 573 of 2025
and Crl.MP(MD).Nos.13641 of 2024 & 371 of 2025
03.07.2026
21/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
