ORDER : This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.64 of 2009, on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, as follows; The case of the prosecution is that the defcto complainant has proceeded Courtallam along with Muralidharan and Muthupandi in a car, bearing Registration No.TN-59-T-6729 and while they stopped the car near Nehru Statute, Rajapalayam, for a Tea break. On 08.05.2018, a about 4.00 p.m., the petitioner, is said to have intercepted the defacto complainant near Nehru Statute, Rajapalayam, with an intention to extract money and abusing him in filthy language and further threatened the defacto complainant with knife and took a sum of Rs.800/- from the pocket of the defacto complainant. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the charges levelled in the final report is a false story and the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken the case on file, since the statement of the witnesses are verbatim one and the same in a stereo type, which has been recorded by the respondent at their convenience. The petitioner is a Tailor, having a shop at Devipattinam and he has not involved in the above offence. Further, compromise and understanding has been arrived at between the petitioner and the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant is ready to withdraw the proceedings in S.C.No.64 of 2009 pending on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District. Therefore, he prayed for quashment, by recording the compromise. 4. The petitioner has also filed an affidavit stating that no such incident had taken place as alleged in the above case. Further, the petitioner to be branded as Goondas, a false case has been foisted against him and the petitioner was detained as Goondas, vide Cr.M.P.No.15 of 2008, dated 29.05.2018, by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Virudhunagar. The petitioner's mother Malliga has preferred a Habeas Corpus Petition in HCP.No.461 of 2009 and the detention order of the District Collector was quashed by this Court, on 30.10.2018. The petitioner further submits that the petitioner is now reaffirmed and got married with Vijaya, his wife and they have two children viz., Gokul and Sowmiya and they are leading the peaceful matrimonial life. The petitioner further submits that the petitioner is now reaffirmed and got married with Vijaya, his wife and they have two children viz., Gokul and Sowmiya and they are leading the peaceful matrimonial life. The first child Sowmiya is studying 12th Standard in Government Higher Secondary School, Kalveerampalayam, Coimbatore and further the petitioner is now having a fancy store in Maruthamalai Adivaram, Coimbatore and having adobe at No. 13, Valliamman Koil Street, Maruthamalai, Vadapalani Post, Coimbatore and leading a peaceful life and the petitioner had not come into adverse notice. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant would submit that the defacto complainant/the 2nd respondent, has filed an affidavit wherein, he had affirmed his willingness to withdraw the case against the petitioner, since the matter has been amicably settled between them. 6. Both the petitioner and the defacto complainant were present before this Court and reaffirmed their affidavits. 7. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. The charge-sheet in the above case was perused. It is found that 7 witnesses have been examined in this case; P.W.1 is the defacto complainant; P.Ws.3 and 4 are the witnesses, who are travelling along with P.W.1 in the car, they have not supported the case of the prosecution; P.W.2 is running a hotel and gone to the Tea stall, where the alleged occurrence took place; P.Ws.5 and 6 are observation mahazar witnesses; P.W.7 is the Village Administrative Officer for the alleged confession, dated 11.05.2018 and P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer. 9. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the State has filed a status report and submits that the offences are grave in nature, which is not a compoundable offence. He further submitted a list of nine cases have been registered, in which it is found that except for two cases, all the other cases it has been either referred or dropped. 10. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the materials though the petitioner and the defacto complainant had arrived at a compromise and the defacto complainant is willing to withdraw the complaint as against the petitioner, it could not be acted upon at this stage. On perusal of the statement of the witnesses, except of P.W.1, who is the 2nd respondent, none of the witnesses have spoken against the petitioner. On perusal of the statement of the witnesses, except of P.W.1, who is the 2nd respondent, none of the witnesses have spoken against the petitioner. Further, it is to be seen that in this case, no identification parade has been held to ascertain, when the defacto complainant and the petitioner are not known to each other before the occurrence. The witness to the occurrence viz., P.W.3 has not supported to the case. In view of the same, it creates serious doubt the manner in which the above case taken place. It is further fortified that the petitioner detention as Goondas has been quashed by the Division Bench of this Court. 11. Since the case is in advanced stage, this Court feels it is proper that the trial Court has to come to a logical end. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defacto complainant/respondent No.2 now comes for compromise was earlier pressurized by the police and hence, his evidence is against the petitioner and the petitioner's petition to recall him was dismissed and the petitioner may be permitted to recall the 2nd respondent to mark the Compromise Memo and also to adduce the evidence to that effect. The contention of the petitioner may be favourably considered by the trial Court, in view of the above development and findings. 12. With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.