L. N. NITHYANANTHAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner in nutshell.

(2.) The second respondent filed a status report with the following contentions.

(3.) At the outset, it may be observed that when the petitioner contends that he was coerced to sign a pre-drafted compromise deed on 02.06.2020 at the Office of District Crime Branch, Pudukottai in the presence of two witnesses produced by the third respondent, the second respondent contends that on 02.06.2020, both the petitioner and the third respondent represented that the matter was already settled between them by executing a compromise deed in 100 rupees stamp paper in the presence of VIPs and Panchayatdhars. However, in paragraph 9 of the status report, it is contended by the second respondent that the petitioner has introduced a new fact in his representation dated 08.07.2020 addressed to the first respondent with regard to the petition filed by Dr.Ramadoss, though it was closed on 01.06.2020 itself. At the same breadth, in paragraph 11 of the status report, it is stated that on 26.02.2021, the complaint lodged by Dr.Ramadoss (third respondent) was closed on his request.