Judgment 1. Upon the complaint of the petitioner, a case in Crime No.520 of 2012 has been registered on the file of the respondent for offences under Sections 294(b), 324, 506(ii) of I.P.C. against two persons, by name, Manjunathan and Kasimalli. Manjunathan has preferred a counter complaint, which has been registered in crime No.521 of 2012 on the file of the respondent for offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. The petitioner is one of the four accused in case registered in Crime No.521 of 2012. Pursuant to investigation in Crime No.520 of 2012, i.e., a complaint preferred by the petitioner, a case is pending trial in C.C.No.134 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem, for offences under Sections 294 (b), 324 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. Pursuant to investigation in Crime No.521 of 2012, the petitioner and three others are facing trial for offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. in C.C.No.135 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem. The petitioner moved C.M.P.No.945 of 2013 in C.C.No.135 of 2012 seeking discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. Against dismissal of such petition, the petitioner preferred the present petition. 2. This Court taking into consideration the fact that a wordy altercation took place between the petitioner and the defacto-complainant in C.C.No.135 of 2012 (Crime No.521 of 2012) over a trivial issue relating to breaking the branches of a tree and in a state of aggravation, the rival parties have struck blows to each other using iron rods and fortunately without causing any considerable injury, thought it appropriate to require both parties to give the issue a quietus. While the petitioner is before us and agreeable to such a course, the defacto complainant in Crime No.521 of 2012 is not before us. 3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that despite being informed, the rival party has chosen not to appear. 4. While the petitioner is before us and agreeable to such a course, the defacto complainant in Crime No.521 of 2012 is not before us. 3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that despite being informed, the rival party has chosen not to appear. 4. Considering the triviality of the issue, that no considerable harm has been caused to either party and particularly that in investigating the counter cases, the respondent police have not followed the procedure envisaged in Rule No.588 of the Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders and being of the considered opinion that in the circumstances, there is hardly any possibility of conviction in either case, this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. directs as follows: 5. The case in C.C.No.134 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 294 (b), 324 and 506(ii) of I.P.C and the case in C.C.No.135 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem shall stand quashed. This petition stands allowed. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2014 is closed.