THOMAS PAIVA Vs. S I OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be a lover in distress. The third respondent herein and the petitioner were allegedly in love. They had gone away and had allegedly spent some time together. A crime was registered under the caption "woman missing". The third respondent was traced later and was produced before the learned Magistrate. She asserted that she wanted to live with the petitioner. The learned Magistrate was not satisfied that that decision/preference was after informed consideration. The learned Magistrate in these circumstances allowed the third respondent to proceed with her father, the 2nd respondent herein. The 2nd respondent was directed to appear again along with the third respondent on a later date, i.e. on 25.1.2007. That order was passed on 25.10.2006. The petitioner has come to this court claiming to be aggrieved by that order dt.25.10.2006.

(2.) This Crl.M.C. was admitted. Notice was ordered to the respondents. Respondents 2 and 3 entered appearance. There were discussions about the possibility of a harmonious settlement. The petitioner and the third respondent along with their counsel were seen by me in my Chamber on two occasions.

(3.) It is now evident that the third respondent does not want to go with the petitioner, though the petitioner expressed his willingness to take her with him if she is willing. After discussions it is agreed that the proceedings initiated can now be closed and the third respondent can be permitted to remain with the 2nd respondent as chosen by her unambiguously before me.