Madras High Court Defers Framing Of Charge In 'Cash-For-Vote' Case Against BJP's Nainar Nagendran, Others

Update: 2026-08-11 15:37 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Madras High Court has deferred the framing of charges in a cash-for-vote case registered against BJP's Nainar Nagendran and others during the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 380] Justice V Lakshminarayanan deferred the framing of charges till August 19. The court was hearing a plea filed by BJP's SR Sekar to quash the case registered against him, which was pending...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Madras High Court has deferred the framing of charges in a cash-for-vote case registered against BJP's Nainar Nagendran and others during the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 380]

Justice V Lakshminarayanan deferred the framing of charges till August 19. The court was hearing a plea filed by BJP's SR Sekar to quash the case registered against him, which was pending before the Judicial Magistrate, George Town. Noting that the case was posted on August 12 for framing of charges, the court directed the Magistrate not to frame charges till August 19.

It may be noted that on April 7, an amount of Rs. 3.99 crore was seized from three train passengers at the Tambaram Railway Station, and these persons were found to be close associates of Nainar Nagendran. The three accused persons had admitted that they were carrying the money to distribute among voters on behalf of Nagendran for the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections.

The case was transferred to CBCID and an FIR had been registered in connection with the offence under Sections 171(C), 171(E), 171(F), 120(b), 109, and 420 read with Section 511 and 188 of the IPC.

SR Sekar, treasurer of Tamil Nadu BJP, had approached the court seeking to quash the case against him. Sekar argued that the final report filed against him was arbitrary, mechanical, illegal and perverse. He argued that even upon reading the final report, no prima facie case had been made out against him and thus it was liable to be quashed.

Sekar argued that except the CDR report to show his tower location, there was no material to show that he had participated in the alleged conspiracy or that he was involved in organising the cash transfer. He argued that the investigating agency had failed to produce any legally admissible material directly connecting Sekar to the seized cash or with any alleged attempt to influence voters.

Sekar thus approached the court seeking to quash the proceedings against him.

Case Title: SR Sekar v State and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 380

Case No: CRL OP No. 22360 of 2026


Tags:    

Similar News