IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10 / 01 / 2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.NO.908 OF 2010 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2010 1.M.Jayanthi @ Lakshmi 2.R.Moorthy ... Petitioners Versus 1.The Secretary to Government Home Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Director General of Police Kamaraj Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. 3.The Police Commissioner Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. 4.The Deputy Commissioner of Police Mylapore, Chennai. 5.R.Mannarmannan ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners for their illegal arrest made by the 5th respondent herein and consequently directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate proceedings against the respondents 4 and 5. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu for Ms.V.Kayalvizhi For Respondents 1-4: Mrs.Lita Srinivasan Government Advocate For Respondent 5 : Mr.K.Venkatramani Senior counsel for Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R The petitioners herein are husband and wife. They have come forward with the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay compensation to them for their illegal arrest made by the then Inspector of Police, Mylapore Police Station, the fifth respondent herein and for a consequential direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate proceedings against the respondents 4 and 5. 2.It is the case of the petitioners that they were arrested by the fifth respondent on 14.09.2008 and remanded to judicial custody under the instigation of one Thiru.Sivaraj, Member of Legislative Assembly representing Rishivanthiyam Constituency in Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, based on his complaint dated 18.12.2007. There were series of cases filed by the petitioners against the said MLA and the MLA also filed the case against the petitioners. 3.The brief facts leading to the filing of those cases are as follows: (a) The marriage between the petitioners took place in the year 1989 at Thiruvannamalai as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Out of their wedlock, they had one son. (b) The second petitioner, who is the husband of the first petitioner, was assisting his father in his business. The market value of the family properties and assets in the business was worth about to Rupees One Crore. There was a dispute between the second petitioner and his father during the year 1997 regarding partition of the family properties. The dispute was taken before the aforesaid MLA for amicable settlement. The second petitioner alleged that during the course of Panchayat, the said MLA enticed his wife (the first petitioner herein) and raped her. He also alleged that his wife and the said MLA lived an adulterous life. (c) The second petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus Petition in H.C.P.No.157/2006 before this Court alleging that his wife (the first petitioner herein) was abducted by the henchmen of the said MLA. In the affidavit filed in support of the Habeas Corpus Petition, he has stated that the his wife (the first petitioner herein) confessed her illicit relationship with the said MLA and that she requested him to marry someone else and live happily. However, he declined the suggestion of the first petitioner. The first petitioner also stated that the second son born to her was fathered by the said MLA. The second petitioner pleaded that the first petitioner lodged a police https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ complaint in All Women Police Station at Sandhapettai, Thirukoilur Taluk, Villupuram District seeking intervention of Police to unite herself with the said MLA and to secure maintenance from the MLA. While so, she was abducted by the henchmen of the MLA. Hence, he approached this Court seeking for a direction to produce his wife (the first petitioner herein) before this Court and to set her at liberty. (d) Accordingly, the first petitioner was produced before this Court. This Court, after enquiring the first petitioner, disposed of the Habeas Corpus Petition in H.C.P.No.157/2006 on 16.02.2006 by recording her statement and the same was reported in 2006 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 594 (R.MOORTHY VS. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS). (e) Thereafter, based on the statement made by the first petitioner before this Court while she was enquired in H.C.P.No.157/2006, the second petitioner filed a complaint dated 18.03.2006 under Section 497 IPC to the Inspector of Police, Thirukoilur against the said MLA for committing adultery. His complaint was referred to the Assistant Director of Prosecution, Villupuram and the Assistant Director opined that the remedy available to the second petitioner was to prefer a private complaint. Accordingly, he filed a private complaint before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistration, Saidapet, Chennai against the MLA and also making the first petitioner as one of the respondents. The same was taken on file in C.C.No.41/2008 by the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. (f) Aggrieved by the private complaint filed by the second petitioner, the MLA filed a Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.30428/2008 before this Court to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.41/2008 pending on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. However, the second petitioner filed an affidavit withdrawing the complaint preferred before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, chennai. Based on the affidavit filed by the second petitioner, this Court passed orders on 29.04.2009 in Crl.O.P.No.30428/2008 quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.41/2008 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. (g) In the meantime, the second petitioner filed a petition in M.O.P.No.6/2007 before the Family Court, Pondicherry seeking divorce on the ground of adultery, wherein the MLA was impleaded as one of the respondents. The said case was dismissed for default. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (h) The first petitioner lodged a private complaint against the MLA on 01.08.2007 before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, the third respondent herein, complaining that the said MLA had sexual intercourse with her many times taking advantage of the starving condition of her family and out of the same, she has one child born through the said MLA during 1998. In those circumstances, the action of the MLA should be construed as rape and that therefore, appropriate action should be taken against the MLA for committing rape. (i) As no action was taken based on her complaint, she approached this Court by filing a Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.33277/2007 seeking for a direction to register FIR against the said MLA, based on her complaint dated 01.08.2007. However, it was reported before this Court that based on the complaint of the first petitioner herein, an enquiry was conducted and ultimately, it was found that the allegations made against the MLA were false. In the said circumstances, this Court passed an order dated 21.11.2007 in Crl.O.P.No.33277/2007 permitting the first petitioner herein to file a private complaint against the MLA before the appropriate forum. (j) Accordingly, the first petitioner filed a private complaint before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and the same was also withdrawn by her. (k) The second petitioner also filed a suit in C.S.No.325/2008 before this Court against the MLA claiming damages to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only). The said suit also was withdrawn by him, as the matter was settled out of Court. (l) While so, the MLA lodged a complaint on 18.12.2007 before the the then Inspector of Police, E-1 Mylapore Police Station, the fifth respondent herein, alleging that the petitioners threatened him through mobile and landline telephone demanding money. However, no FIR was registered as there were series of cases filed by each of them as stated above. (m) Hence, the MLA filed a Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.21093/2008 before this Court seeking for a direction to the respondents therein to register FIR, on the basis of his complaint dated 18.12.2007. This Court passed orders on 02.09.2008 in Crl.O.P.No.21093/2008 directing the fifth respondent herein to register FIR and to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law, as the facts revealed the commission of cognizable offences committed by the petitioners herein. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (n) Based on the directions of this Court, on 12.09.2008, the fifth respondent herein registered FIR in Crime No.1429/2008 under Sections 294(b), 506(i) read with 34 IPC and investigated the matter. During the course of investigation, the petitioners were arrested on 14.09.2008 and remanded to judicial custody. They were detained in jail for 11 days, until they were released on bail. After investigation, the fifth respondent herein filed a charge sheet before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.7857/2009. (o) The petitioners filed a Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.21714/2009 before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.7857/2009 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. This time, the MLA filed an affidavit stating that the petitioners have approached him through mediators and that they have admitted their mistakes and agreed to withdraw all the litigations filed against him. It is also stated that they executed a signed affidavit to that effect. Hence, he was not interested in prosecuting the case in C.C.No.7857/2009. In those circumstances, recording the affidavit filed by the MLA, this Court has quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.7857/2009, by an order dated 27.10.2009 in Crl.O.P.No.21714/2009. (p) In these circumstances, the petitioners gave a complaint dated 23.12.2009 to the respondents 1 to 3 herein alleging that the fifth respondent herein foisted a false case against them in Crime No.1429/2008 under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC, based on the complaint given by the MLA. It is further stated therein that said case was quashed by this Court on 27.10.2009 in Crl.O.P.No.21714/2009. Since they were arrested illegally by the fifth respondent in contravention to the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in JOGINDER KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. reported in AIR 1994 SC 1349, they sought direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the respondents 4 and 5 and also sought compensation for their illegal arrest. As no action was taken on their complaint, they have come up with the present writ petition. 4.The respondents 1 to 3 have filed a common counter affidavit refuting the allegations made by the petitioners. It is stated in the counter affidavit that a case was registered in Crime No.1429/2008 under Sections 294(b), 506(i) read with 34 IPC on the file of the E-1 Mylapore Police Station, Chennai, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 02.09.2008 in Crl.O.P.No.21093/2008 and that the fifth respondent investigated the case in accordance with law and arrested the petitioners and produced them before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai on 14.09.2008 and the said Magistrate remanded them to judicial custody. Hence, there was no illegality in the petitioners' arrest. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.The fifth respondent has also filed a counter affidavit on the same lines. 6.Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7.The issue that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is as to whether the fifth respondent arrested the petitioners on 14.09.2008 illegally and detained them for 11 days entitling them to seek compensation for their illegal arrest. 8.The aforesaid narration of facts make it clear that there were series of cases filed by the petitioners against the MLA. As stated above, the second petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus Petition in H.C.P.No.157/2006 before this Court seeking for production of the first petitioner and to set her at liberty from the clutches of the MLA. Accordingly, she was produced before this Court and the said HCP was disposed on 16.02.2006 recording the statement made by the first petitioner. Paras 3 and 4 of the judgment of this Court in H.C.P.No.157/2006 are extracted hereunder: "3.Pursuant to the direction of this Court, respondents 3 and 4 produced the detenue., viz., Mrs.Lakshmi @ Jeyanthi, before this Court. We enquired her. On our enquiry, she has stated that, she is aged about 33 years and as on date she is studying in Government Service Home, Cuddalore. She further informed us that she had connection with 5th respondent and lived together with him for sometime. According to her, 5th respondent is the father of her second son, who is aged about 7 ½ years. She states that she also filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate, Tirukkoilur, with a request to unite her with the 5th respondent. She is not in a position to inform the details of the said petition said to have been filed by her before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirukoilur. 4.Learned Government Advocate informs that she approached the learned Magistrate for claiming maintenance from 5th respondent for herself and her second son and that the said petition is still pending." 9.Based on the statement made by the first petitioner before this Court in H.C.P.No.157/2006, the second petitioner filed a complaint dated 18.03.2006 under Section 497 IPC. Since the Police https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ authorities directed him to file a private complaint, he filed a private complaint before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistration, Saidapet, Chennai and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.41/2008. The MLA filed Crl.O.P.No.30428/2008 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.41/2008. However, the second petitioner filed an affidavit withdrawing the complaint. Based on the affidavit filed by the second petitioner, this Court passed orders on 29.04.2009 in Crl.O.P.No.30428/2008 quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.41/2008 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. In this regard, paras 2, 5 and 6 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder: "2.When the petition to quash the proceedings filed by the petitioner has been taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel for the respondent produced an affidavit before this Court expressing desire to withdraw the complaint, since the issue between the petitioner and the respondent has been amicably settled. The respondent is also physically present in Court and expressed his desire to withdraw the complaint and produce the affidavit attested by his counsel. 5.The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the complaint filed, though sworn statement was taken, no further proceeding was taken and further has expressed his desire to withdraw the complaint filed before the learned Magistrate. Since the entire records were called for at the time of admission of petition, it has been transmitted to this Court. 6.Under such circumstances, I am of the considered view that it will be futile exercise to send back the complaint and other materials to the learned Magistrate for performing formal rituals of recording the statement of the respondent. When the respondent is physically present by filing an affidavit represented through his counsel and expressed his desire to withdraw the complaint, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose will be served in allowing the proceedings in C.C.No.41 of 2008 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai – 8, to continue. Therefore, the proceedings are quashed and accordingly, the criminal original petition is ordered. " https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10.From the above, it is seen that settlement was arrived at between the petitioners and the MLA. However, the terms of the settlement is not known. 11.In this regard, para 3 of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition is extracted hereunder: "3.I submit that my husband the 2nd petitioner herein lodged private complaint before the Learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai against the said MLA for the offence under Section 497 IPC and the same was numbered in C.C.No.41/2008 and subsequently, the said MLA filed quash petition before this Hon'ble Court for Quash and the same was allowed by this Hon'ble Court." 12.The second petitioner also filed a petition in M.O.P.No.6/2007 before the Family Court, Pondicherry seeking dissolution of his marriage with the first petitioner on the ground of adultery, wherein the MLA was impleaded as one of the respondents. But the same was dismissed for default. In this regard, para 5 of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition is extracted hereunder: "5.I submit that my husband filed Divorce Petition against me on that ground adultery before the Family Court, Pondicherry in M.O.P.No.6/2007 in that petition my husband impleaded the said MLA as one of the respondent, but the same was dismissed in default." 13.It is further seen that the second petitioner filed a suit in C.S.No.325/2008 before this Court against the MLA claiming damages to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only). However, it is stated that the matter was settled out of Court and the second petitioner withdrew the suit. In this regard, para 4 of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition is extracted hereunder: "4.I submit that my husband filed damage suit in C.S.No.325/2008 before this Hon'ble Court against the said MLA and subsequently the said matter was settled in out of Court and hence, my husband withdrew the said Civil Suit." Here also, the terms of the settlement is not known. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14.The first petitioner lodged a private complaint against the MLA on 01.08.2007 before the third respondent complaining that the said MLA had sexual intercourse with her many times taking advantage of the starving condition of her family and that the second son was born through the said MLA and that in those circumstances, the action of the MLA should be construed as rape and that therefore, appropriate action should be taken against the MLA for committing rape. No action was taken and hence, she filed a Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.33277/2007 seeking for a direction to register FIR against the said MLA, based on her complaint dated 01.08.2007. It was reported before this Court that on enquiry, it was found that the allegations made by her against the MLA were false. Accordingly, this Court passed an order dated 21.11.2007 in Crl.O.P.No.33277/2007 permitting her to file a private complaint against the MLA before the appropriate forum. Accordingly, she filed a private complaint before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and the same was also withdrawn by her. In this regard, para 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is extracted hereunder: "6.I submit that I lodged complaint before the Commissioner of Police against the said MLA for rape in the year 2007, but no actions were taken by the respondents hence I approached this Hon'ble Court for direction, directing the police to register FIR against the said MLA, when the above petition pending the respondent police referred the matter and hence this Hon'ble Court was pleased passed orders to file private complaint. Accordingly, I filed private complaint against the said MLA before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and the same was withdrawn by me." Here also, the terms of the settlement reached between the first petitioner and the MLA for withdrawing the complaint was not known. 15.As stated in the order dated 16.02.2006 passed in H.C.P.No.157/2006, the first petitioner filed maintenance case against the MLA and the same was also withdrawn. 16.While so, the MLA lodged a complaint dated 18.12.2007 against the petitioners. The crux of the allegation was that the petitioners threatened him through mobile and landline phones and demanded money. It was also alleged that abusive words were used. The MLA has further stated that in view of the threat, he was put to mental agony and hence, he requested action against the petitioners. However, no action was taken. Hence, he filed a Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.21093/2008 seeking direction to the fifth respondent to register FIR and to investigate the case in accordance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with law. This Court, on 02.09.2008 disposed the Crl.O.P.No.21093/2008 observing that the complaint of the MLA reveals the commission of cognizable offences by the petitioners and therefore, a direction was issued to register FIR and to investigate the same in accordance with law. Para 4 of the order dated 02.09.2008 passed in Crl.O.P.No.21093/2008 is extracted hereunder: "4.I have carefully considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. When the allegations contained in the complaint dated 18.12.2007 do reveal the commission of cognizable offences the first respondent has no other option except to register the case and proceed further with the matter in accordance with law. When the first respondent has failed to register the case the petitioner had approached the second respondent and even thereafter no worthwhile action has been taken hence the petitioner has approached this Court. In such circumstances the first respondent is hereby directed to register the case for the cognizable offences revealed from the allegations contained in the complaint dated 18.12.2007 and investigate the case in accordance with law and file the final report within six months from today." 17.As stated above, based on the directions of this Court, the fifth respondent herein registered FIR on 12.09.2008 in Crime No.1429/2008 under Sections 294(b), 506(i) read with 34 IPC on the file of E-1 Mylapore Police Station against the petitioners. As this Court gave a finding that the complaint of the MLA reveals that the petitioners have committed cognizable offences, the fifth respondent, after registering FIR, investigated the matter and arrested the petitioners on 14.09.2008 during the course of investigation and produced them before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and were remanded to judicial custody. After investigation, the fifth respondent filed a final report under Section 173(2) (1) Cr.P.C. and the relevant passage from the said final report is extracted hereunder: ",t;tHf;fpy; ,Jtiu g[yd; tprhuiz bra;J Kof;fg;gl;ljpy; fPH;f;fz;l cz;ikfs; g[ydhfpd;wd. ,t;tHf;fpd; thjp jpU. v!;. rptuh$;/ j _bg Rg;gpukzpak; vd;gth; jw;nghJ jkpH;ehL rl;lrig hp#pte;jpak; bjhFjp rl;lkd;w cWg;gpduhf bray;gl;L tUgth;. fle;j 1997k; Mz;L ,e;j tHf;fpd; vjphp: K:h;j;jpf;Fk; mtuJ je;ij uhK brl;oahUf;Fk; brhj;J gphptpidapy; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ jfuhW Vw;gl;L mjd; fhuzkhf tHf;fpd; thjp jpU. v!;. rptuh$;/ rl;lkd;w cWg;gpdh; mth;fsplk; g";rhaj;J ngr brd;Ws;sdh;. thjpapd; Kd;dpiyapy; ele;j g";rhaj;jpy; uhK brl;oahh; jd; kfd; K:h;j;jpf;F U:gha; 5 yl;rk; bfhLg;gjhf xg;g[f; bfhz;L U: 1 yl;rk; U: mJrkak; K:h;j;jpf;F bfhLj;Jk;/ kPjp bjhif U: 4 yl;rj;ij 6 khjj;jpw;Fs; bfhLj;J tpLtjhf xg;g[f; bfhz;L Kot[ vLf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. ,e;epiyapy; 2tJ vjphp Kh;j;jp g";rhaj;J Kot[f;F khwhf mtuJ je;ij uhK brl;oahh; kPJ tHf;F bjhlh;e;Jk;/ mtuJ kidtpahd tHf;fpd; 1tJ vjphp b$ae;jp (v) yl;Rkpia tpl;L gphpe;J brd;Ws;shh;. ,e;epiyapy; 1tJ vjphp b$ae;jp (v) yl;Rkp thjpapd; tPl;ow;F thjp ,y;yhj neuj;jpy; mof;fo te;J jd; khkdhhplk; gz;j;ij bgw;Wj;jUk;go tw;g[Wj;jp te;jjhy; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; tHf;F bjhlh;e;Js;sjhy; g";rhaj;J Kot[g;go gzj;ij bgw;Wj;ju ,ayhJ vd;W thjp bjhptpj;Js;shh;. mjdhy; 1tJ vjphp b$ae;jp (v) yl;Rkp thjp jd;dplk; jfhj Kiwapy; bjhlh;g [ bfhz;L mof;fo jd;dplk; gHfp te;jjhft[k;/ mjdhy; jdf;F Mz; FHe;ij cs;sJ vd;W bgha;ahd jftiy g[fhh; K:yKk;/ ePjpkd;wk; K:yKk;/ gj;jphpf;if K:yk; tpsk;gug;gLj;jp te;Js;shh;. ,jd; bjhlh;r;rpahf 1tJ vjphp b$ae;jp (v) yl;Rkpa[k;/ 2tJ vjphp K:h;j;jpa[k; xd;W nrh;e;J thjpaplk; gzk; gwpf;f ntz;o bray;gl;L 1tJ vjphp jdJ ifngrp vz; 99762 47924 y; ,Ue;J thjpapd; ifngrp vz; 94437 36000 vz;zpw;F fle;j 23.8.2007 k; njjp gfy; 11.00 kzp mstpYk;/ 25.8.2007 k; njjp gfy; 3.05 kzpf;F thjpapd; tPl;L blypnghd; 04153 25741 vd;w vz;zpw;Fk; bjhlh;g[ bfhz;L "Xj;jh njtpoah iga;ah eP vk;.vy;.V vd;why; bghpa kapwh" vd;W mrp';fkhft [k;/ Mghrkhft[k; jpl;oa[k;/ eh';f nfl;Fk; gzj;ij bfhLf;fhtpl;lhy; thjpiaa[k;/ mtuJ FLk;gj;jhiua[k; capnuhL tplkhl;nlhk; vd;W xHpj;J fl;o tpLnthk; vd;W kpul;oa[s;sdh;. bjhlh;e;J 26.10.2007 k; njjp khiy 4.30 kzp mstpy; thjp brd;idapy; cs;s tPl;L bjhiyngrp vz; 24332814f;F 1tJ vjphp ifngrp vz; 99402 71158 \yk; bjhlh;g [ bfhz;L thjpapd; rnfhjuh; jpU. fhh;j;jpnfad; mtuJ kidtp[ jpUkjp Mde;jp vd;gtiu Vd;o njtpoah eP c';f vk;.vy;.V.t[f;F brhy;Yo vd;W Mghr thh;j;ijfis ngrp kd cisr;riy cz;L gz;zpa[s;sdh;. vjphpfs; V1/ V2 ,Uthpd; ,e;j bray; rl;lg;gphpt[ 294 gp/ 506 (1) c, 34 ,jrtpd;go Fw;wkhFk;. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vdnt vjphpfs; V1/ V2 ,UtUk; rl;lg;gphpt[ 294 gp/ 506 (1) c, 34 ,jrtpd;go jz;of;fg;gl ntz;oa Fw;wk; g[hpe;jtuhfpwhh;fs;." 18.The final report of the fifth respondent was taken on file in C.C.No.7857/2009 by the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed a Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.21714/2009. In that petition, the MLA filed an affidavit stating that the matter stands settled and that he does not want to prosecute the case. In this regard, the relevant portion of the affidavit filed by the MLA is extracted hereunder: "2.I state that during March/April, 2009, the Petitioners approached the Mediators and through them they approached me and admitted their mistake and further agreed to withdraw all litigations filed against me. They have also executed a signed Affidavit, for the same. It was also agreed that the above case in Crime No.1429 of 2008 on the file of the