JUDGMENT : B.R. Gavai, J. – Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, and is heard finally by consent. 2. Applicants have approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report No. 57/2014 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(F) & 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Both the applicants were employed as Assistant Teachers in Mahatma Jyotiba Fule Vidyalaya, Narodi. It appears that since both of them were working together, relations between them became intimate. It further appears that the applicants had physical relationship with each other on account of the said intimacy. It further appears that thereafter some dispute arose between the applicants and as such, the aforesaid First Information Report came to be lodged by the applicant no.1 against applicant no.2. It is alleged in the said First Information Report that the applicant no.2 by either emotionally blackmailing or by giving a false pretext of marriage, forced the applicant no. 1 to have physical relations with the applicant no.2. 4. It now appears that, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. The applicants have married each other on 30.9.2014. The marriage certificate is also placed on record as Annexure No. II. 5. The applicants are personally present in the Court. We have personally interviewed the applicant no. 1. She states that she has performed marriage with applicant no.2. 6. The Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh & others v. State of Punjab & another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 : 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 1886 (S.C.) has laid down certain guidelines for exercising the powers for quashing the complaints under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. One of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court is that this Court should examine as to whether there is a remote possibility of conviction being made if the said case comes for trial. In the present case, we find that since the petitioner no. 1 herself is not desirous of prosecuting the criminal case, there is not even the remotest possibility that even if the trial proceeds, the same may culminate in conviction. Not only that if the trial is permitted to proceed, apart from mental agony to the applicant no.1, it will be the applicant no.2 who will be required to suffer a greater agony and embarrassment. 7. Not only that if the trial is permitted to proceed, apart from mental agony to the applicant no.1, it will be the applicant no.2 who will be required to suffer a greater agony and embarrassment. 7. In that view of the matter, the present case is a fit case wherein this Court following the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh, [2014 ALL MR (Cri) 1886 (S.C.)] cited supra, while exercising powers under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, should put an end to the criminal proceedings. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of Prayer Clause [i].