Prosecution proceedings can be quashed when the matter is settled amicably and no public interest is harmed.

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.976 of 2024 on the files of 1st Additional District and Sessions Court, Kollam. She faces criminal prosecution for the commission of offences under Section 57 of the KP Act, 2011 and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 .

2. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that the issue involved in this case, has been amicably settled with the defacto complainant, and hence the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

4. The defacto complainant has filed an affidavit before this Court, stating that the issue has been amicably settled with the petitioner, and hence he is not interested in continuing the proceedings against the petitioner. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, submitted that the defacto complainant had given statement to the Investigating Officer also, to the effect that the issue has been amicably settled with the petitioner, and hence he is not interested in continuing the criminal prosecution against the petitioner.

6. The offence under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 , has been incorporated in this case upon the allegation that the petitioner, the mother of a 11 year old female child, had eloped with another person after abandoning her. However, there is nothing on record to show that the above child has suffered any injury due to the aforesaid act of the petitioner. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that as per the instructions received from the Investigating Officer, the child is under the care and protection of the de facto complainant, who is the brother of the petitioner. In the above circumstances, the incorporation of Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act cannot be taken as a reason to disallow the prayer for quashment of the case.

7. The issue involved in this case is purely private in nature. Now that it has been amicably settled between the parties. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that no purpose would be fulfilled by the continuance of the prosecution against the petitioner, and hence it is highly necessary to terminate the prosecution proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court. Such a course is also required to maintain the harmonious relationship between the parties. Therefore, the prayer in this petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner, has to be allowed.