Heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.
2.When the matter came up for hearing today, the petitioner as well as the de facto complainant are personally present before this Court and they are also identified by the Inspector of Police, Kilpauk Police Station, Chennai.
3.The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that pending proceedings in S.C.No.224 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge (Mahalir Neethi Mandram), Chennai, the de facto complainant/second respondent herein and the petitioner have amicably resolved the dispute between themselves, pursuant to which, the de-facto complainant/second respondent has agreed not to press the complaint made against the petitioner.
4.The learned counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant submitted that in this connection, the second respondent has also filed an affidavit dated 01.08.2017 stating that she does not intend to pursue the matter further and that the proceedings in S.C.No.224 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge (Mahalir Neethi Mandram), Chennai, against the petitioner may be quashed.
5.Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also recording the statements made by the de-facto complainant in the affidavit filed by her, the proceedings in S.C.No.224 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge (Mahalir Neethi Mandram), Chennai is quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.08.2017 AT To
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kilpauk Range, Kilpauk, Chennai 10.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
M.S.RAMESH.J, AT/DP Crl.OP No.7901 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.5715 of 2017 01.08.2017