RAMDOSS Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the third respondent.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the jurisdictional Magistrate passed an order under Sec. 156(3) of CrPC on 23/3/2021, the second respondent instead of registering an FIR and conducting investigation had straightaway filed a closure report.

(3.) The learned counsel for the third respondent would point out that the petitioner had earlier filed a criminal complaint against him and that a coercive compromise was arrived at under the aegis of Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Pudukkottai. That necessitated the third respondent to file Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1776 of 2021. Vide order dtd. 30/3/2021, the said petition was allowed and the compromise deed dtd. 2/6/2020 was quashed. Challenging the same, the petitioner herein filed S.L.P.(Crl.) No.8637 of 2021 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said SLP was dismissed on 10/12/2021. In view of the dismissal of the SLP, according to the learned counsel for the third respondent, this criminal original petition is not maintainable.