Muthusamy v. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police
2014-09-16
N.KIRUBAKARAN
body2014
DigiLaw.ai
Judgment At the instance of the second respondent/de-facto complainant, a case has been registered against the petitioner under Sections 294(b) and 355 IPC r/w Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in Crime No.8 of 2014. The said F.I.R is being challenged before this Court. 2. When the matter is called today, both the petitioner as well as the second respondent are present before this Court and the second respondent would submit that the matter has been settled between the parties and he does not want to proceed with the matter. 3. In view of the statement made by the second respondent/de-facto complainant, no fruitful result will be achieved by further proceeding in the matter. 4. In view of the above, the Crime No.8 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent, is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.