Judgment 1. At the instance of the second respondent/de-facto complainant, a case has been registered against the petitioners under Sections 341, 506(2), 466, 468, 469 and 471 IPC and Section 4 of the Women Harassment Act, in Crime No.423 of 2011 dated 02.07.2011. The said F.I.R is being challenged before this Court. 2. When the matter is called today, both the petitioners as well as the second respondent are present before this Court. The second respondent along with her father would submit that the matter has been settled between the parties and she does not want to proceed with the matter. 3. In view of the categorical statement made by the second respondent, no useful purpose will be achieved by further proceeding in the matter. 4. The first petitioner has also filed an affidavit stating that the first petitioner namely M. Tamilarasan, has given consent for passing a decree in O.S.No.322 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sankarankoil, as prayed for. The said suit has been filed by the S. Saradha/second respondent herein. While quashing both the petitions, this Court directs M. Tamilarasan, who is the first petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.7861 of 2014 and the second respondent in Crl.O.P(MD)No.17356 of 2014, to submit the decree in O.S.No.322/11 before the District Court, Sankarankoil, filed by S. Saradha, as per the undertaking given by the said Tamilarasan in paragraph 6' of the affidavit which reads as follows: "6. I humbly submit that while the quash petition in Crl.O.P(MD)No.7861 of 2014 came up for hearing on 25.06.2014 this Hon'ble Court was pleaded to refer the matter to Mediation for amicably settling the issue. Before the mediation it has been amicably settled that we would withdraw the respective complaints in Cr.No.423 of 2011 and Cr.No.581 of 2011 and give our consent for quashing the same and that I will give my consent for the suit in O.S.No.322 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sankarankoil, as prayed for therein and further I had already paid Rs.45,000/- towards the legal expenses incurred by the 2nd respondent herein. Reiterating the same the 2nd respondent had also filed her consent affidavit in Crl.O.P(MD) No.17356 of 2014 and I crave leave of this Hon'ble Court to read the same as per and parcel of this Quash petition." 5. Reiterating the same the 2nd respondent had also filed her consent affidavit in Crl.O.P(MD) No.17356 of 2014 and I crave leave of this Hon'ble Court to read the same as per and parcel of this Quash petition." 5. In view of the above, the F.I.R in Crime No.423 of 2011 on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed as against the petitioners and this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.