Judgment :- ‘B’ party in M.C.No. 3 of 1990 on the file of Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul have filed this petition under Sec.482, Crl.P.C, praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the same. 2. Short facts are: On the information furnished by the respondent, the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul had passed under Sec.111, Crl.P.C, acting under Sec.107, Crl.P.C, against ‘A’ party counter petitioners consisting of nine persons and ‘B’ party counter petitioners consisting of 12 persons. 3. Mr.T. Sudanthiram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that an order under Sec.111, Crl.P.C, cannot be passed against both the parties and clubbing of both parties in a single order is illegal. I have heard Mr. Raja, the learned Government Advocate on the above aspects. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the rival counsels. In Shanmughiah v. State, 1987 L.W. (Crl.) 49, Justice K.M.Natarajan had quashed similar proceedings for the reason that both parties were clubbed in a single order. In para. 2 the learned Judge had observed as follows: "This Court has repeatedly held in a catena a decisions that the clubbing of both parties, i.e., A party and B party, in one and the same proceedings, is illegal and as such, the proceedings are liable to be quashed on the said ground." The learned Judge had placed reliance on an earlier decision in Shanmugavel and others v. State represented the Inspector of Police, Udumalpet and ten others, Crl.M.P.No.181 of 1977, wherein Justice Natarajan (as he then was) elaborately considered this aspect and considered a number of earlier decisions and held that two opposing parties to a proceeding under Sec.107, Crl.P.C., cannot be proceeded against and bound over in one and the same proceeding. I am in respectful agreement with the view of the learned Judge. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in M.C.No.3 of 1990 on the file of Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul against the petitioners are hereby quashed.