1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.01.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.32 of 2011 1. Ilayaraja 2. Senthil 3. Thirukumaran 4. Kubendran 5. Ramesh 6. Gajendran 7. Palpandi 8. Vivek 9. Selvaraj ... Petitioners Vs. 1. State: rep. by Inspector of Police Pattiveeranpatti Police Station Dindigul District ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2. Muthupandi ... 2nd Respondent/ De-facto complainant 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Nilakottai Dindigul District ... Proposed 3rd respondent (R3 impleaded as per order dated 10.1.11 made in M.P.(MD)No.1/11 in Crl.O.P(MD) No.32/11 by VPKJ) PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to Crime No. 214 of 2010 dated 6.11.2010 on the file of the first respondent, Inspector of Police, Pattiveeranpatti Police Station, Dindigul District and quash the same as against the petitioners. For Petitioners : Mr. M.Maharaja For 1st Respondent : Mrs.Devasena Government Advocate For 2nd Respondent : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan O R D E R This Petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the case in Crime No. 214 of 2010, dated 6.11.2010 on the file of the first respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. Heard Mr. M.Maharajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mrs.Devasena, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and also Mr. S.Deenadhayalan, takes notice for the second respondent/de-facto complainant. 3. The second respondent is present before this Court and he is represented through his counsel. However, the offence said to have been committed by the petitioners are under Section SC/ST Act and therefore, it cannot be quashed in the proceedings before this Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/de- facto complainant would submit in his argument that he is also willing to file affidavit to that effect before the Investigating Officer/the third respondent. 5. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to direct the second respondent/de-facto complainant to file affidavit before the Investigating Officer/the third respondent regarding the compromise arrived in between them and on filing such affidavit by the de-facto complainant before the respective Investigating Officers/ the third respondent, the said Officers are directed to do the investigation after due consideration of the affidavit and to complete the same preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid direction, this Petition is disposed of. Sd/- Deputy Registrar /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The Inspector of Police Pattiveeranpatti Police Station Dindigul District 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Nilakottai, Dindigul District 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +1 CC to Mr.M.Maharaja, Advocate (SR.No.1189) Crl.O.P.(MD).No.32 of 2011 10.01.2011 vsg NSV/10.2.11/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/