Dismissed¶19

R.Jaganathan v. State by

Madras HC4 Apr 2025CRL OP/754/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR; Section 482 Cr.PC; prima facie ingredients; PUTER Park; PUTER Foundation; Periyar University; Periyar University Act Sections 13(4)(a), 25, 20, 23, 26; Companies Act 2013 Section 8; misuse of name, seal and stamp; SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s); caste abuse; Neeharika Infrastructure guidelines; Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar; criminal proceedings not to be scuttled at initial stage; quashing an exception not rule; investigation to be completed in 12 weeks; Crime No.1003 of 2023; Karuppur Police Station Salem; Crl.O.P. dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No quashing of FIR; all three Criminal Original Petitions dismissed. Direction issued to the 1st respondent to complete the investigation within twelve (12) weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

R.Jaganathan Vs State by — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in Crime No.1003 of 2023 registered on the complaint of the 3rd respondent ought to be quashed at the threshold under Section 482 of Cr.PC. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

This Court finds no grounds to quash the very FIR on its threshold and is not inclined to quash the FIR as against the three accused persons (the petitioners).

¶18

Ratio / Principle

In the result, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed.

¶19

Key takeaways

The 1st respondent is directed to complete the investigation within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (G.K. Ilanthiraiyan J.) dismisses Crl.O.P.Nos.754, 1067 & 5515 of 2024 filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC seeking quashing of FIR in Crime No.1003 of 2023 (Karuppur Police Station, Salem City), registered on the complaint of I.Elangovan against the Vice Chancellor, Registrar-in-charge and others connected with Periyar University for offences under Sections 294(b), 120B, 420, 468, 409, 511, 506(1) of IPC and 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The FIR arose out of the alleged registration of PUTER Park/PUTER Foundation (a private company under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013) by university officials without syndicate or Government approval, allotment of university space, non-payment of rent, and an incident of alleged caste abuse on 26.12.2023. Relying on Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 14 SCC 350, and M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Court held that where the ingredients of the offences are prima facie disclosed, criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage and quashing should be an exception; it found no grounds to quash the FIR at its threshold, dismissed the petitions, and directed completion of investigation within twelve weeks.

¶1

Crl.O.P.Nos.754, 1067 & 5515 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Reserved on: Pronounced on:

04.03.2025

04.04.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶8

Crl.O.P.Nos.754, 1067 & 5515 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.Nos.499, 736 & 4031 of 2024

¶9

Crl.O.P.No.754 of 2024 :

¶10

R.Jagannathan, Vice Chancellor, Periyar University, Omalur Taluk, Salem District.

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.State by

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karuppur Police Station, Salem City, Salem District. (Crime No.1003 of 2023)

¶15

2.State by

¶16

The Inspector of Police, Karuppur Police Station, Salem City, Salem District. (Crime No.1003 of 2023)

3.I.Elangovan

.. Respondents

1/20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

Crl.O.P.Nos.754, 1067 & 5515 of 2024

¶22

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC., praying to call for the records of the case pending investigation in Crime No.1003 of 2020 by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karuppur Police Station, Salem City, Salem District and quash the same.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.Godson Swaminathan for M/s.Isaac Chambers For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor For R3 : Mr.V.Ajay Khose

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.1067 of 2024 :

¶25

1.Dr.K.Thangavel, The Registrar (in-charge), Periyar University, Salem – 636 011.

¶26

2.Dr.S.Sathish,

¶27

Associate Professor, Dept. of Computer Science, Periyar University, Salem – 636 011.

¶28

.. Petitioners

¶29

Vs.

¶30

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sooramangalam Range, Salem.

¶31

2.The Inspector of Police, Karuppur Police Station, Salem City, Salem District – 636 012.

¶32

2/20

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

Crl.O.P.Nos.754, 1067 & 5515 of 2024

¶35

3.Elangovan

¶36

.. Respondents

¶37

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC., praying to call for the records in connection with FIR in Crime No.1003/2023 dated 26.12.2023, on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same in so far as the petitioners herein are concerned.

¶38

For Petitioners : Mr.Godson Swaminathan for Mr.B.Ram Prasath

¶39

For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor For R3 : Mr.C.Vijayakumar

¶40

Crl.O.P.No.5515 of 2024 :

Ram Ganesh

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Suramangalam, Salem District.

¶45

2.State by Inspector of Police, Karuppur Police Station, Salem District. (Crime No.1003 of 2023)

¶46

3.Elangovan .. Respondents

¶47

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC., praying to call for the records relating to the FIR filed in Crime No:

¶48

3/20

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

Crl.O.P.Nos.754, 1067 & 5515 of 2024

¶51

1003/2023 dated 26.12.2023 on the file of the 2^nd respondent and quash the First Information Report registered as against the petitioner herein.

¶52

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manoharan For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor For R3 : Mr.S.Jim Raj Milton

¶53

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶54

These petitions have been filed to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.1003 of 2023 on the file of the 1^st respondent.

¶55

2.All the petitioners are arrayed as accused in Crime No.1003 of

¶56

2023 and challenging the very same FIR in all the petitions. Therefore,

¶57

this Court passes the common order.

¶58

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional

¶59

Public Prosecutor for the respondents 1 & 2 and the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶60

4.On the complaint lodged by the 3^rd respondent, the 1^st respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.1003 of 2023 for the offences punishable

¶61

4/20

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

Crl.O.P.Nos.754, 1067 & 5515 of 2024

¶64

under Sections 294(b), 120B, 420, 468, 409, 511, 506(1) of IPC and

¶65

3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The

¶66

3^rd respondent after his retirement as a teacher, was elected as the President of the Thiruvalluvar University Employees Union, the Periyar University Employees Union and the Bharathiar University Employees Union. Further, he has been nominated as the legal advisor of three trade unions. While being so, he had taken up all the issues of the non-teaching staffs of these universities and raised industrial disputes and also filed writ petitions.

¶67

5.Further, the 3^rd respondent has also been consistently espousing

¶68

the SC/ST, differently abled and marginal people of the society including women and has filed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before this Court. While being so, the accused in Crime No.1003 of 2023 had jointly on their own without the knowledge of the syndicate of the Periyar University, registered a Private Limited Company by the name Periyar University Technology Entrepreneurship and Research Foundation (hereinafter referred as 'PUTER Foundation') on 14.09.2023 for their personal gains by misusing the name, seal and stamp of the Periyar University. Thereby, they swindled huge amount and caused loss to the

¶69

5/20

¶70

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶71

Crl.O.P.Nos.754, 1067 & 5515 of 2024

¶72

exchequer. The second accused in his capacity as the Registrar in charge of the Periyar University, appointed himself as the Coordinator of the Incubation Technology Transfer Centre, (hereinafter referred to as 'ITTC') by order dated 15.07.2014. As per his communication dated 08.12.2021, an expert committee was constituted to suggest the ways and means for registering the said syndicate as a Section 8 Company under the Companies Act, 2013, as well as for changing the name of ITTC into Periyar University Technology Entrepreneurship Research Park (hereinafter referred to as 'PUTER Park') and also allotted space for ITTC in the Periyar University campus.

¶73

6.Further, in the letter dated 01.03.2022, the 2^nd accused stated that

¶74

the 1^st accused gave permission for creation of an official website of the Periyar University for the PUTER Park. The 1^st accused also granted permission to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with a private institution besides Government institutions as per the letter of communication dated 10.03.2023 of the 2^nd accused. Thereafter, the 1^st accused permitted the change of nomenclature of the Coordinator of the PUTER Park into the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the PUTER Park as per the communication dated 15.03.2023 of the 2^nd accused. The said

¶75

6/20

¶76

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶77

Crl.O.P.Nos.754, 1067 & 5515 of 2024

¶78

letter was sent by the 2^nd accused in the capacity of Registrar-in-Charge and addressed himself as the Professor and Head of the Department (HOD) in Computer Science Department, Periyar University. Thereafter, the 1^st accused allotted 2024 sq.ft of built up area for the PUTER Park as per the communication dated 24.04.2023 of the 2^nd accused. They conducted the first meeting of the Governing Committee, PUTER Park on 07.06.2023 and it was not known to the authority as to who constituted

¶79

the governing committee of the PUTER Park. By the same communication it was decided to register the PUTER Park as a Company under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013.

¶80

7.It was further alleged that the 1^st accused granted permission to arrange the IT amenities required for the PUTER Park in the premises of the Periyar University as per the communication dated 31.07.2023. As per the minutes of the governing committee dated 06.10.2023, the name of PUTER Park was changed into Periyar University Technology Entrepreneurship and Research Foundation (hereinafter referred to as 'PUTER Foundation') and four persons and the alleged accused persons were appointed as the Directors of PUTER Foundation.

¶81

7/20

¶82

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶83

Crl.O.P.Nos.754, 1067 & 5515 of 2024

¶84

8.Further, as per the communication dated 06.10.2023, the designated posts were created for appointment in PUTER Foundation and also collection of fees for consultation and participation norms were fixed and 15 projects were approved. That apart, eight private companies have signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Public Private Partnership. The syndicate of the Periyar University by its resolution No.102(A6) dated 11.01.2019 decided to register as a Section 8 Company under the Companies Act, 2013, in the name and style of PUB Incubation Confederation (Periyar University Business Incubation Confederation) to give effect to the G.O.(Ms).No.6, Higher Education (K2), Department

¶85

dated 19.01.2013. Therefore, it is the only company registered under Section 8 of the Companies Act and also resolved to permit three of its teachers to be the Board of Directors namely Dr.T.Poongodi Vijayakumar, Dr.J.Prakash Maran and Dr.M.Deepa of Food Science and Nutrition Department. Further, there is no approval of the PUTER Foundation from the syndicate of the Periyar University. The Vice Chancellor of the Periyar University has no power to create or establish a private company under Section 8 of the Companies Act as per Section 13(4)(a) read with Section 25 of the Periyar University Act, 1997. Further, all the profits made by the Periyar University Business

¶86

8/20

¶87

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶88

Crl.O.P.Nos.754, 1067 & 5515 of 2024

¶89

Incubation Confederation is credited to the Periyar University Account. But the profit made by the PUTER Foundation goes only to the accused persons. Therefore, in order to question these irregularities, when the 3^rd respondent visited the Vice Chancellor on 26.12.2023 at about 01.30 PM along with his friend to the Periyar University, the Vice Chancellor scolded him with a filthy language and also abused him by using his caste name and threatened him with dire consequences.

¶90

9.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are absolutely no ingredients to make out the case under the SC/ST Act. He also produced the CCTV footage to show that when the 1^st accused came out of the office to his car, the 3^rd respondent met him and boarded into the car. The incident happened in the car parking and it is not a public place. Therefore, no offence is made out under SC/ST Act. The petitioner was appointed as Vice Chancellor of Periyar University, Salem, on 01.07.2021. After taking charge as a Vice Chancellor, he found several irregularities, financial mismanagement and other issues that prevailed in the University. Therefore, he had taken all steps to prevent the irregularities and financial mismanagement by taking department proceedings against the teaching and non-teaching officials. He also had

¶91

9/20

¶92

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶93

Crl.O.P.Nos.754, 1067 & 5515 of 2024

¶94

traced misappropriation to the tune of Rs.23,00,000/- by verifying the documents and records in the Distant Education University. While being so, in the year 2003, the Government of Tamil Nadu Higher Education Department had issued a Government Order in G.O.(Ms).No.6, Higher Education (K2) Department, dated 19.01.2013 for setting up of Incubation and Technology Transfer Centres in nine universities including the Periyar University.

¶95

10.In pursuant to the said Government Order, the 2^nd accused was appointed as the Coordinator and decided to change the name as Periyar University Technology Entrepreneurship and Research Park (i.e.,) PUTER Park on 01.03.2022. Further another start up business Incubator was hosted in Periyar University which was registered under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013, in the name and style of Periyar University Business Incubation Confederation which is duly registered under Section 8 of the Companies Act and it is a non-private company. In fact, the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) also inspected and verified the Incubation Centre and stated the administration and development. The Vice Chancellor, the Registrar and two other eminent professors from the General Council were appointed as Directors

¶96

10/20

¶97

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶98

Crl.O.P.Nos.754, 1067 & 5515 of 2024

¶99

of the said company. Therefore, no offence is made out as alleged by the 3^rd respondent. In order to pursue personal vengeance, the 3^rd respondent has lodged the present complaint.

¶100

11.The counsel for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.5515 of 2024 submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as 4^th accused. The only allegation against him is that he along with other accused persons had started a private company under the name and style of Periyar University Technology Entrepreneurship and Research Foundation, with profit motive. He is a professor in Bharathidasan University. On the request made by the 2^nd accused to be a member of governing committee of PUTER Park explaining its role, the same was accepted by the petitioner. The petitioner was never appointed by any appointment order to serve as a member of the governing committee, instead he participated in the online Governing Body Meeting which was held on 24.05.2023. The petitioner never participated in any activities of the PUTER Park. In fact, the 2^nd accused convened a General Body Meeting on 04.10.2023, for which the petitioner could not participate due to his previous assignment. Further, he was under the impression that this company is non-profitable and to serve the students and therefore he cooperated with the other

¶101

11/20

¶102

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶103

Crl.O.P.Nos.754, 1067 & 5515 of 2024

¶104

accused persons and accepted to act as a member of the Governing Committee. Therefore, no offence is made out as against the petitioner under the SC/ST Act or any other provisions in IPC. Further, there is no accusation as against the petitioner that he had caused monetary loss to the University and to the Company. In fact, subsequently, the petitioner's name was removed from the list of directors in the PUTER Park. Therefore, the petitioner is no more a Director of PUTER Park from 30.11.2023.

¶105

12.On perusal of the counter and also on the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents 1 & 2, it is revealed that as per G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 19.01.2013, issued by the Higher Education Department, ordered to set up a Incubation and Technology Transfer Centres in nine Universities including the Periyar University. Each University was granted 29.88 lakhs for the said establishment. However, as per the Government Order, no instruction was given to register the said establishment under Section 8 of the Companies Act. As per the Government Order, ITTC was established to offer innovative ideas of the students into commercially viable products and provide a platform to establish startup to commercialize these innovative

¶106

12/20

¶107

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶108

Crl.O.P.Nos.754, 1067 & 5515 of 2024

¶109

technologically viable products with the support of business firms and entrepreneurs or commercialize it by linking the villages through village level technology associations. While being so, all the accused connived together along with one Tr.Sasikumar Sadhasivam, Executive Director Knowledge and Skills International, Cochi, Kerala, had illegally started the project without approval of the syndicate in the name of PUTER Park under the banner of ITTC that too against the norms specified under G.O.(Ms).No.6 dated 19.01.2013. They had started this project with an ulterior motive of performing illegal pecuniary gain by misappropriating the funds by way of cheating by starting an institution fraudulently in the name of Periyar University and to offer technological trainings to the entrepreneurs as well as to the students through their interested private institutions at their choice after making Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

¶110

13.That apart, they had neither placed this proposal in any of the subsequent syndicate meeting nor sent the proposal to the Government for any permission. In order to legalize the PUTER Park, they had illegally and fraudulently changed the name of ITTC into PUTER Park on their own accord dated 01.03.2022 that too without an approval of the

¶111

13/20

¶112

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶113

Crl.O.P.Nos.754, 1067 & 5515 of 2024

¶114

syndicate. The change of nomenclature without permission of the syndicate as well as the Government is totally illegal. Further, they have been fraudulently allotted three halls to their private company in the place of the Business Incubation Centre and the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication of the Periyar University which was established and built from the Government funds. Further, all the communications were sent to themselves without obtaining any permission or approval from the syndicate of the University.

¶115

14.As per the Periyar University Act Chapter - IV Class – II, Sections 20, 23 and 26, the buildings, assets, infrastructures belonging to Periyar University are under the direct control and supervision of the syndicate of the University. Even before the registration of the said Company, by the accused 1 & 2, by order dated 14.09.2023, fraudulently allotted 2024 sq.ft of space for the office of the PUTER Park that too without any approval from the syndicate. They also illegally allotted 300 sq.ft of space for the CEO of the PUTER Foundation. In fact, the CEO of the PUTER Foundation and the Registrar of the Periyar University is one and the same person. Further, a 720 sq.ft of space was also allotted in the second floor of the building for the purpose of imparting drone pilot

¶116

14/20

¶117

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶118

Crl.O.P.Nos.754, 1067 & 5515 of 2024

¶119

training which was allotted with the approval of the Vice Chancellor, the 1^st accused and the allotment order was issued by the 2^nd accused. The said orders were issued to themselves and the 2^nd accused acted as CEO of PUTER Park as well as the Registrar of the University. For these halls, they fixed the rent at Rs.26,782/-, Rs.9,865/- and Rs.3,972/- in total Rs.30,764/-. However, they have not paid any rent to the Periyar University and they had misappropriated the said rent for a period of eight months to the tune of Rs.2,55,847/-.

¶120

15.That apart, they had invested a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from their personal money as share capital amount of the PUTER Foundation. If the PUTER Foundation is a part of the Periyar University, there was absolutely no necessity for the accused who are the Directors of the said private company to invest their personal money. They also had spent more than Rs.5,00,000/- towards interior works carried out in the place allotted for the PUTER Foundation. These allegations are clearly attracting the offences under Sections 294(b), 120B, 420, 468, 409, 511, 506(1) of IPC and 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as against the accused persons.

¶121

15/20

¶122

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶123

Crl.O.P.Nos.754, 1067 & 5515 of 2024

¶124

16.Further, in this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the judgment reported in

¶125

2019 (14) SCC 350 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors., ( Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 ) held that the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance and summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind only with the view to taking cognizance of the offence whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused person. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence in support of the complaint, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to conviction or not. Only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, the complaint/FIR can be taken for consideration for quashment. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute

¶126

the offence of which cognizance has been taken by Magistrate, it can be considered for quashment. Therefore, it is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed,

¶127

16/20

¶128

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶129

Crl.O.P.Nos.754, 1067 & 5515 of 2024

¶130

there would be no justification to interfere. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it is no open to the Court to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Therefore, the criminal complaint cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.

¶131

17.Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued directions in

¶132

the judgment reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 in the case of M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra &

¶133

ors. , as follows :-

¶134

“23. ....................

¶135

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

¶136

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;

¶137

xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the

¶138

17/20

¶139

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶140

Crl.O.P.Nos.754, 1067 & 5515 of 2024

¶141

investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

¶142

xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; .......”

¶143

18.In view of the above, this Court finds no grounds to quash the very FIR on its threshold. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to quash

¶144

18/20

¶145

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶146

Crl.O.P.Nos.754, 1067 & 5515 of 2024

¶147

the FIR as against the three accused persons.

¶148

19.In the result, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed.

¶149

The 1^st respondent is directed to complete the investigation within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶150

04.04.2025

¶151

krk Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶152

¶153

1.State by

¶154

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karuppur Police Station, Salem City, Salem District.

¶155

2.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sooramangalam Range, Salem.

¶156