ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("the Code" for brevity) with a prayer to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners. 2. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in S.C. No. 451 of 2010 on the files of the 1st additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. In the aforesaid case, they face indictment under Section 366(A), 109 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 3. The 3rd respondent herein, while she was just over 16 years of age, fell in love with the 1st petitioner herein. The 2nd respondent herein is the elder brother of the 3rd respondent and the 4th respondent is her mother. The relationship was strongly opposed by the family. The 1st petitioner and the 3rd respondent decided to elope. The prosecution alleges that at some time between 8 a.m. on 1.4.2006 and 10 a.m. on 2.4.2006, the 1st petitioner with the active assistance of petitioners 2 and 3 abducted the 3rd respondent from her house at Thekkepuram Ranni. On 2.4.2006, the 2nd respondent approached the Sub Inspector of Police, Ranni Police Station and gave a statement based on which, Crime No. 147 of 2006 was registered under Section 366A of the IPC. The 1st petitioner and the 3rd respondent were later found in the house of one Soman, a relative of the 1st petitioner. The 3rd respondent was permitted to go with her parents and the 1st petitioner was arrested and remanded. When investigation revealed that the petitioners 2 and 3 had abetted the commission of the offence, they were also roped in as accused Nos. 2 and 3. Investigation was conducted and final report was laid before the jurisdictional court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the materials would reveal that the 3rd respondent was in love with the 1st petitioner and when they were found in the parental house together at unseemly hours, the father of the 3rd respondent had beaten her and had asked her to leave the house. It is submitted that the petitioners had neither abducted nor kidnapped the 3rd respondent but she had come along with the 1st petitioner in the aforementioned circumstances. It is submitted that the petitioners had neither abducted nor kidnapped the 3rd respondent but she had come along with the 1st petitioner in the aforementioned circumstances. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the 3rd respondent is now happily married and is the mother of two children and she is residing with her husband at Sharjah. According to the learned counsel, the respondents 2 to 4 have filed separate affidavits wherein they have asserted that they have no grievance and they have no objection in quashing the proceedings. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 contended that the 3rd respondent has entered a new phase in her life and is living with her husband and children in a foreign country. She is not desirous of re-opening the forgettable incidents which took place during the early part of her life and according to the learned counsel, calling upon her to depose in a case such as the instant one will be detrimental to her family life. The learned counsel submits that in view of the peculiar facts of the instant case, it is only just and proper that this Court invokes its extraordinary powers to bring the criminal proceedings to a premature termination. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to get instructions. The investigating officer has recorded the statements of the victim and her family members and the same has been produced before the court. The respondents 2 to 4, who are the de facto complainant, the victim as well as her mother, have unequivocally stated before the police officer that they are not desirous of pursuing the prosecution proceedings at this stage. It is also stated that the statements made by them in Annexures-A2 to A4 affidavits are genuine and they have no serious objection in terminating the criminal prosecution. 7. Heard the submissions. 8. The position with regard to quashing of proceedings on the basis of compromise between the parties is by now well settled. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. It was observed as follows: "61. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. It was observed as follows: "61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above questions is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings." 9. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the pertinent observations which are as under: xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice. (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 10. From the final report, it appears that the 3rd respondent and the 1st petitioner was in love. The incident had occurred about 11 years back. The 2nd respondent had left the house when she was caught red handed with the 1st petitioner herein. The 3rd respondent has since then got married and is living a perfect family life with her husband and two children. I am of the view that it will not be in the interest of the 3rd respondent to force her to give evidence in a case, when her predominant wish is to erase that very incident from her memory and her life. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the various aspects of the instant case, I am of the view that the settlement arrived at between the parties can be taken note of to protect the interest of both the parties. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the various aspects of the instant case, I am of the view that the settlement arrived at between the parties can be taken note of to protect the interest of both the parties. In the fact scenario grave hardship and inconvenience will be caused to the 3rd respondent if the prosecution is permitted to continue. When the 3rd respondent herself has asserted that she is not inclined to prosecute the petitioner any further, the prospects of an ultimate conviction is remote and bleak. Further more, the 3rd respondent can continue with her life without the stigma. 11. I am also of the considered view that the allegations raised would not fall in the category of offences that has a serious impact on the society. Extreme depravity, perversity or cruelty is not revealed. On the other hand, the continuance of the criminal proceedings can cause irreparable hardship to the victim and her family members. 12. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A1 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as S.C. No. 451 of 2010 on the files of the 1st Additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta are quashed.