ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. On the basis of information furnished by the 2nd respondent, who is the uncle of the 3rd respondent herein, Crime No. 922 of 2011 of Kannur Police Station was registered on 29.9.2011 under the caption "woman missing" by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kannur Police Station. 3. According to the de facto complainant, his niece who was living with his sister and studying in Plus one class was missing from 22.7.2011 onwards. Investigation revealed that the petitioner herein who was 18 years of age at the relevant point of time was in love with 3rd respondent and they had eloped. The 3rd respondent was traced out and was produced before the learned Magistrate from where she was released to the custody of the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, Section 366A of the IPC was incorporated and after conclusion of investigation final report was laid before the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class-I Kannur, which has been committed to the Court of Sessions and the case is now pending as S.C.No.287 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Thalassery. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was in love with the 3rd respondent. It is submitted that since their relationship was objected by the parents of the 3rd respondent they had decided to elope. It is further submitted that there is no allegation that the petitioner had committed any sexual assault on the victim. It is finally submitted that the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent have married and are residing with their respective families. 5. Placing reliance on the affidavits sworn to by respondents 2 and 3, it is submitted that they have resolved the matter and it will not be in the interest of justice to continue with the criminal prosecution. 6. The learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 would submit that the 3rd respondent is now 4 months pregnant and is residing abroad with her husband. It is also submitted that her family life will be shattered if she is made to depose in terms of the offence before the jurisdictional court. According to the learned counsel, it is in the best interest of the 3rd respondent that the prosecution in the instant matter be terminated. 7. It is also submitted that her family life will be shattered if she is made to depose in terms of the offence before the jurisdictional court. According to the learned counsel, it is in the best interest of the 3rd respondent that the prosecution in the instant matter be terminated. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions would submit that statement of the de facto complainant has been recorded. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, though the allegations raised are serious, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the State has no serious objection in quashing the proceedings as the 3rd respondent has married and is living happily with her family. 8. I have considered the submissions. 9. The legal position with regard to quashing of proceedings on the basis of compromise between the parties is by now well settled. It has been held that the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal Court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the Court will have to give due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. It is also settled that heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offenses are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. The directions of the Apex Court in Gian singh v. State of Punjab [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ] and in Narinder singh v. State of Punjab [ (2014) 6 SCC 466 ] serve as guiding lights. 10. In the instant case, the 3rd respondent had eloped with the petitioner when their relationship was objected to by the family. The materials do not reveal that the ingredients of Section 366A of the IPC is attracted in the instant case. No harm was caused to the 3rd respondent. 10. In the instant case, the 3rd respondent had eloped with the petitioner when their relationship was objected to by the family. The materials do not reveal that the ingredients of Section 366A of the IPC is attracted in the instant case. No harm was caused to the 3rd respondent. The prosecution records only reveals that the petitioner and the 3rd respondent had travelled to various places. The prosecution has no case that the petitioner had induced the 3rd respondent to go from any place with knowledge that she would be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person. In that view of the matter, the offence under Section 366A of the IPC will not be made out. 11. I also take note of the fact that this is not one of those cases wherein the allegations reek of extreme depravity, perversity or cruelty. It cannot be said that the offence in the instant case would fall in the category of offences that have a serious impact on society. In the peculiar facts of the instant case, grave hardship and inconvenience will be caused to the 3rd respondent if the prosecution is permitted to continue. When the respondent No. 2 and 3 have asserted that they are not desirous of prosecuting her husband any further, the prospects of an ultimate conviction is remote and bleak. Further more, the 3rd respondent can continue with her life with dignity and respect. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this is a fit case in which 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-2 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as S.C.No.287 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Thalassery are quashed.