ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings. 2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 1015 of 2016 of Aroor Police Station. The said crime has been registered at the instance of the 2nd respondent herein alleging offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC. 3. On 30.11.2016, the 2nd respondent gave a complaint before the Vanitha Cell, Alappuzha alleging that in the month of January, 2016, at about 6 a.m. the petitioner herein entered the kitchen of the house of the 2nd respondent and sexually assaulted her. It is also alleged that the petitioner made an attempt to commit rape. Based on these allegations, Annexure-A1 FIR was registered on 3.12.2016 for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the party respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the registration of the offence under Section 376 of the IPC was unwarranted. The de facto complainant had no case that rape was committed. It is further argued that the husband of the 2nd respondent is a near relative of the petitioner and in the course of proceedings, the disputes have been resolved. The long delay in registering the Crime is highlighted by the learned counsel to contend that the allegations are false. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that during the relevant period she was undergoing treatment under a Psychologist for certain family problems and it was on account of her particular mental state that a complaint was filed against the petitioner alleging attempt to commit rape. According to the 2nd respondent, she is living with her husband and two sons and prays that the proceedings be terminated for her own welfare and mental well being. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submits that the Inspector of Police, Kuthiathode Police Station had recorded the statement of the 2nd respondent immediately after registration of the crime. At that stage, the petitioner had backed out from her earlier version and stated that the petitioner had only caught hold of her hand. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submits that the Inspector of Police, Kuthiathode Police Station had recorded the statement of the 2nd respondent immediately after registration of the crime. At that stage, the petitioner had backed out from her earlier version and stated that the petitioner had only caught hold of her hand. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the 2nd respondent had stated that the matter has been resolved. It is pointed out that the 2nd respondent had refused to give a statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. 7. I have considered the submissions and I have perused the case diary and the statement of the Inspector of Police. Though Annexure-A1 crime has been registered under Section 376 of the IPC, it does not appear that the 2nd respondent was raped by the petitioner. At the most, an offence under Section 511 of 376 will be made out. The 2nd respondent in her affidavit has stated in detail the reason behind lodging a statement alleging various offences against the petitioner. It is also borne out from the statement that the petitioner herein is a near relative of her husband. She has stated that she is no desirous of prosecuting the petitioner for various reasons. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, it 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. The extreme depravity, perversity or cruelty is not revealed. The 2nd respondent is a married lady and she asserts that during the relevant period she was undergoing treatment at the Medical Trust Hospital due to certain personal problems. 9. 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." 10. 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 11. Though in Narinder Singh (supra), the Apex Court had held that the offence of rape falls in the grave category, in the instant case the said offence is not clearly made out. 12. 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 2nd respondent if the prosecution is permitted to continue. 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. Further more, the 2nd respondent can continue with her life without the stigma. 13. 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. Further more, the 2nd respondent can continue with her life without the stigma. 13. 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 FIR in Crime No. 1015 of 2016 of Aroor Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner are quashed.