The evidence is almost over and the trial court will now decide whether Ms. Kanimozhi is guilty or not of the charges against her, the bench said.

In a blow to the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam DMK MP Kanimozhi, the Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed her plea to quash charges framed against her in the 2G case after keeping it pending for over two and a half years.

A bench of Chief Justice H.L. Dattu and Justices A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Nariman said the evidence is almost over and the trial court will now decide whether Ms. Kanimozhi is guilty or not of the charges against her.

"Now the trial is almost over. 2G Special Public Prosecutor Anand Grover submits that evidence is complete. Final arguments are coming to an end... At this belated stage, we are not going to entertain this petition," Chief Justice Dattu observed.

Senior advocate Amarendra Sharan, for Ms. Kanimozhi, said the petition had been kept pending by the Supreme Court for over two and a half years for no fault of his client.

>Indepth: 2G spectrum scandal

Mr. Sharan argued that criminal charges can be framed against a person only if there is grave suspicion verging on certainty against her.

He referred to the factual matrix of the case and submitted that there was not an "iota of doubt" against Ms. Kanimozhi.

Balwa's plea dismissed

The bench also dismissed a similar plea by another accused Shahid Balwa.

Meanwhile, the bench modified its 2011 and 2012 orders, which had restricted accused persons from approaching the High Court against any order passed by the Special Court trying the 2G scam cases. The orders directed that accused persons should come straight to the Supreme Court alone.

Changing this arrangement, the bench closed the Supreme Court's door on the 2G accused. Instead, it has allowed accused persons to move the High Court concerned, but only against the final judgment of the Special Court in the 2G scam cases.

The bench made it clear that High Courts will not entertain petitions by 2G accused persons against "every other interim order" passed by the trial court.

Ms. Kanimozhi had moved the Supreme Court in July 2013.

>Ms. Kanimozhi said she was one of the directors of Kalaignar TV for a mere two weeks, from June 6 to 20, 2007. She resigned much before the launch of the TV channels and she had not signed any cheque on behalf of the company or received any monetary benefit.

Further, she was only a 20 per cent minority shareholder, and a shareholder could not be saddled with criminal liability for acts of commission and omission of the company.

She said the allegations made against her pertained to the financial transactions made between December 2008 and August 2009 — after more than 18 months of her resignation.

The prosecution documents itself would show that she had no role in the operations of the company, especially in relation to the transfer of Rs. 200 crore, or its repayment. Nor was she a beneficiary of the loan transaction.