ORDER : 1. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 5 in S.C. No. 184 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kottayam. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 323, 376, 448, 498A, 471 read with 34 of the IPC and under Section 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and under Section 3 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. 2. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2nd respondent. The petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the 1st petitioner. The 4th and 5th petitioner are the aunt and grandfather respectively of the 1st petitioner. 3. The 1st petitioner was in love with the 2nd respondent. While they were in love, the 1st petitioner is alleged to have induced the 2nd respondent to sexual intercourse. She became pregnant. The petitioner entered into a form of marriage with the 2nd respondent though she was a minor and they started living together as husband and wife. According to the prosecution, during they stay together, the petitioners subjected the 2nd respondent to cruelty and harassment demanding property and valuable security. She was forced to return back home. It is also alleged that on 17.11.2014 at 9.30 p.m. the petitioners herein had trespassed into the house of the 2nd respondent and committed mischief. Stating these allegations, a complaint was lodged by the 2nd respondent before the Thrikodithanam Police Station based on which Crime No. 1820 of 2014 as registered alleging offences punishable under section 448, 376, 498A, 471 323 read with section 34 of the IPC. Investigation was conducted and Annexure-A2 final report was laid before the court of Sessions, where the same is pending as aforesaid. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the 2nd respondent as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the 2nd respondent is the wife of the 1st petitioner and they had married on 5.1.2015. Earlier the mother of the 2nd respondent was not agreeable for the marriage as the 1st petitioner belonged to a different community. Later a decision was taken by the family members to solemnise the marriage between the parties. However, at that time the 2nd respondent had not attained majority. Earlier the mother of the 2nd respondent was not agreeable for the marriage as the 1st petitioner belonged to a different community. Later a decision was taken by the family members to solemnise the marriage between the parties. However, at that time the 2nd respondent had not attained majority. Thereafter on 5.1.2015, the 1st petitioner had married the 2nd respondent and a child was also born in the wedlock. Reference is made to Annexure-A5 certificate of marriage issued under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1956 to bring home his point. It is submitted that after the marriage, the parties are living in peace and harmony and hence, the continuance of criminal proceedings is clearly unwarranted. 6. The 2nd respondent has entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn to by her has also been placed on record. In the affidavit the 2nd respondent stated that her desire is to live peacefully with her family members and prays that the proceedings be quashed. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submits that the enquiry conducted revealed that the petitioner had married the 2nd respondent and they are living together as husband and wife. 8. I have considered the submissions and have perused the materials on record. 9. It appears that the crime was registered on 20.11.2014 and curiously offence under section 498A as well as section 376 is incorporated. It is borne out from the records that the 2nd respondent was in love with the 1st petitioner. In the FI statement, the incidents which took place before 20.11.2014 is seen narrated. However, the 1st petitioner had married the 2nd respondent on 5.1.2015 and they are now living with their child. In view of the subsequent events, I am of the view that the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner loses its strength and vigor. Apparently the crime was registered when the tempers ran high and under the circumstances which prevailed then. Now that the matter has been settled as borne out from the affidavit sworn to by the 2nd respondent and as they are living in peace and harmony with their only child, I am of the considered view that this is a fit case where the extraordinary powers of this Court under section 482 can be invoked to quash the proceedings. It does not appear to me that the allegations reek of extreme depravity, perversity or cruelty. It does not appear to me that the allegations reek of extreme depravity, perversity or cruelty. It also cannot be said that the allegations raised would fall in the category of offences that has a serious impact on the society. The offence of rape is clearly not made out. 10. 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 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." 11. 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. When the 2nd 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. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure- A2 final report in Crime No. 1820 of 2014 of the Thrikkodithanam Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto in S.C. No. 184 of 2015 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kottayam are quashed.