VIJAYA KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Nayana W/o Vijaya Kumar appeared before this Court by waiving the notice. The learned counsel Sri.M.N.Venkata Reddy put in his appearance to respondent No.2. Registry is directed to print his name. The learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondent No.1.

(2.) Sri Vijaya Kumar S/o Sri Siddagangaiah @ Mariyappa and Smt.Nayana W/o Vijaya Kumar are present before the Court. Today they have filed a joint affidavit of both petitioner-accused and respondent No.2-complainant. In the joint affidavit it is submitted that they have amicably settled the matter out of the Court. The petitioner-accused has agreed to take back respondent No.2 as his wife and they are ready to reunion and live together by dissolving their disputes. Even both the parents have agreed to take them back. It is further submitted that as per the school records the date of birth of respondent No.2 is 6.2.2001 and she has attained the age of majority and she is competent to enter into compromise. They have also further submitted that the said compromise is without there being any threat, force, coercion, fraud or misrepresentation. The said joint affidavit has been signed by the petitioner-accused and respondent No.2- complainant and same has been endorsed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(3.) When the Court asked a question to both the parties, they submitted that since earlier they used to like each other and now they intended to jointly live together as husband and wife. At this juncture, it is worth to mention here itself a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of J.Ramesh Kamath and Others v. Mohana Kurupt and Others, reported in (2016) 12 SCC 179, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain principles as to under what circumstances the Court can quash the proceedings or compound the offences even in respect of a non-compoundable offences, wherein it has been held as under:-