ORDER : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. 2. The present petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 366(A), 376, 448, 342, 326, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 5(L) and 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. It was alleged that on 07.09.2015 at about 11.30 a.m. the respondent No.3 was said to be staying in the house of respondent No.2who is said to be the grandmother of respondent No.3. According to the complainant-respondent No.2, the petitioner had barged into her house and had tied her up and had gagged her and pushed her into the kitchen and closing the door, the petitioner had taken away respondent No.3 from their house. She was unaware of the intentions of the petitioner. She had later taken treatment for her injuries that were caused. It is thereafter that she had alleged that the petitioner had kidnapped respondent No.3. This was as on 2013. Thereafter a complaint was lodged in the year 2013, repeated in the year 2014 and again in the year 2015. It then transpires that the petitioner and the third respondent had in fact eloped and had got married. It transpires that they were married before the Marriage Officer, Harapanahalli and certificate was issued dated 04.01.2017. It is in this background that the petitioner who is on bail is before this Court along with respondent No.3, claiming that they are now husband and wife. 3. Mr.Chandrashekar, learned Counsel enters appearance for respondent No.3. It is stated that respondent No.3 has no intention to prosecute the case against the petitioner as they were in love earlier and have now married and are living as husband and wife. The second respondent however has chosen to treat the petitioner as a rapist and has alleged that he had kidnapped the petitioner. Though she had made a statement before the Police, she has no intention of taking the case forward against the petitioner. It is in this background that the present petition is filed seeking that the proceedings be quashed. The learned Counsel seeks to place reliance in the case of Narinder Singh Vs. Though she had made a statement before the Police, she has no intention of taking the case forward against the petitioner. It is in this background that the present petition is filed seeking that the proceedings be quashed. The learned Counsel seeks to place reliance in the case of Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another reported in (2014)6 SCC 466 , wherein under similar circumstances a joint petition was filed therein but here, since the third respondent is before the Court and has been represented by a Counsel, the proceedings ought to be quashed. 4. However, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would raise a serious objection and would point out that a coordinate Bench in Crl.P.No.9463/2016 in the case of Soni Nihal Dinesh Bhai and Another Vs. Sri Sandeep Patel dated 08.02.2017 has taken a view that as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 , “that heinous and serious offences like mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute”. Relying on this observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the coordinate Bench has proceeded to hold that the petitioner therein would have to stand trial and therefore there was no escape from prosecution and the proceedings could not be quashed on that ground. 5. However, it is to be noticed that the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relates to established cases of rape and it is a general observation as regards cases of rape where the victim or victim’s family have settled their disputes. Those ought not to be treated as cases for quashing the proceedings. This however is a circumstance where there is no such settlement. 6. There was no dispute in the first instance and it is the claim of the petitioner as well as third respondent now that they were always in love and they had eloped though during the minority of respondent No.3. They are now married after the third respondent has attained majority. Therefore, to allow the proceedings to continue and to incarcerate the petitioner indefinitely till such time the trial is concluded would serve no purpose and would result in two lives being destroyed. They are now married after the third respondent has attained majority. Therefore, to allow the proceedings to continue and to incarcerate the petitioner indefinitely till such time the trial is concluded would serve no purpose and would result in two lives being destroyed. Therefore, differing from the opinion expressed by the coordinate bench as regards the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the opinion expressed which applies to the facts of that particular case, and which would at best be an authority for the case decided therein, there is no general rule laid down in the said decision except relying on the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which does not categorically lay down that the couple though married they should still be separated and the husband be prosecuted for rape. Since this is not a mere case of settlement but where a finality has been given to the circumstances by the couple having married, it would result in a gross miscarriage of justice if the proceedings are continued against the petitioner. 7. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The proceedings pending against the petitioner in Case No. Spl.C.C.No.36/2016 on the file of L Additional City Civil and Session Judge, Bengaluru City, stands quashed.