ORDER : Banwari Lal Sharma, J. Petitioners/Accused Manoj Kumar Meena and Ashok have preferred this Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal proceedings of Sessions Case No. 58 of 2014 (State v. Jitendra) pending before Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hinduan City, District Karauli for offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(G)(4) IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.03.2013, complainant respondent no. 3 Ram Prakash father of respondent no. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal proceedings of Sessions Case No. 58 of 2014 (State v. Jitendra) pending before Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hinduan City, District Karauli for offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(G)(4) IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.03.2013, complainant respondent no. 3 Ram Prakash father of respondent no. 2/victim submitted a written report before SHO, Police Station Sadar, Hinduan City stating therein :- lsok esa Jheku Fkkukf/kdkj egksn; Fkkuk lnj fg.MkSu flVh fo"k; tcjnLrh ls cykRdkj djus dh fjiksVZ ntZ djus ds dze esaA Jheku th fuosnu gS fd esjh iq=h f'kockbZ eh.kk mez 18 lky gSA tks ,l0Vh0lh0 izFke o"kZ fu;fer Nk=k Hkxoku egkohj f'k{kd ijh{k.k egkfo|ky; dkapjksyh fg.MkSu esa v/;ujr gSA tks fd izfrfnu dh Hkkafr lqcg lk<+s lkr cts xkWao ls tkrh gSA fnukad 21-03-2013 dks lqcg lk<+s lkr cts f'kockbZ ?kj ls thi esa dkWyst ds fy, i<+us x;h FkhA jkLrs esa gekjs xkao ds v'kksd iq= euksgjh eh.kk] thrsUnz iq=0 tuheku] v'kksd dk lkyk eukst eh.kk fuoklh /kk/kjSu rglhy c;kuk] ftyk&Hkjriqj ,d bafMdk tSlh xkM+h ftl ij ,e0ih0 ds uEcj fy[ks gq, Fks] esa cSBdj x;s vkSj jkLrs esa tkrs le; thi esa esjh iq=h f'kockbZ cSBh FkhA dB?kj cl LVS.M ij v'kksd o thrsUnz us dgk fd ge fg.MkSu tk jgs gSa vkSj rq>s ge dkapjksyh dkWyst ij NksM+ nsaxsA bl ij esjh iq=h f'kockbZ mu ij fo'okl djds og xkao ds ukrs ds HkkbZ gksus ds dkj.k mu ij Hkjkslk djds muds lkFk thi ij ls mrjdj bafMdk esa cSB x;hA dB?kj ls LVS.M ls mUgksaus fg.MkSu dh rjQ u ys tkdj dB?kj xkWao dh rjQ xkM+h ?kqek nhA esjh iq=h us dgk fd rqe eq>s dgka ys tk jgs gks] bl ij rhuksa us dV~Vk fn[kkdj pqipki jgus dks dgk vkSj /kedh nh fd pqipki cSBh jg ojuk tku ls ekj nsaxs vkSj f'kockbZ dks dB?kj ls vkxs lqulku txg ij ys x;sA vkSj ogka tkdj rhuksa us feydj tcjnLrh ls xyr dke ¼cykRdkj½ fd;k vkSj f'kockbZ dks djkSyh ys x;sA cPph dks xkM+h esa NksM+dj ,d gksVy dh rjQ pys x;sA rc ekSdk ikdj thi M~kbZoj viuh xkM+h dks ysdj Hkkxk vkSj cPph dks jksMost cl LVS.M ij mrkj fn;kA rc esjh cPph djkSyh ls fg.MkSu okyh jksMost esa cSBdj dkapjksyh lgsyh lk/kuk eh.kk ds ikl pyh x;hA ogka ls cPph xkWao ds fy, jokuk gks x;hA blls igys dkWyst ds izkpk;Z ds ;gka ls cPph ds dkWyst ugha vkuk ,oa cPph dk Ldwy cSx ljeFkqjk Fkkus esa tIr gksus dh lwpuk feyhA bl ij eSa thi }kjk dkapjksyh tkus ds fy, jokuk gqvkA jkLrs esa tkrs le; esMhjk;iqj ds chp cPph 'kjhQ [kku feL=h esjs gh xkao dk eksVjlkbZfdy ls ykrk gqvk feykA esjh cPph ?kcjkbZ gqbZ o lgeh lgeh lh gks jgh FkhA cPph dks ?kj ys vk;kA cPph us 'keZ ds ekjs gesa dqN ugha crk;k] ysfdu iRuh o eka us rlYyhiwoZd iwNk rc lkjh ?kVuk crkbZA eSa esjh ekWa esjs ifjokj dh bTtr dks [;ky esa j[krs gq, fjiksVZ ntZ ugha djk ldkA vc eSaus lkjh ckr dk irk yxk;k rks irk pyk fd ;g ?kVuk fcYdqy lgh gSA esjh iq=h ds lkFk rhuksa us tcjnLrh ckjh&ckjh ls cykRdkj fd;k gSA ftl xkM+h ls ysdj x;s ml xkM+h dks ljeFkqjk Fkkus ij pSd fd;k tgka ij ml xkM+h ds uEcj o M~kbZoj dk uke Fkkus ij fy[kk gSA fjiksVZ is'k djrk gwWa fd dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djus dh d`ik djsaA 3. On the aforesaid report FIR No. 123/2013 for offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(G) IPC was registered and investigation commenced. After investigation charge sheet was filed for the aforesaid offences and the same was committed to sessions Judge as the alleged offences were exclusively triable by Sessions Judge. Presently the trial of Sessions Case no. 58/2014 is pending before Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hinduan City, District Karauli. 4. Mr. Hemant Tailor Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Rajeev Surana Learned Counsel for petitioners submits that respondent no. 2 has got married with petitioner no. 1 and her statement has already been registered during trial before the Trial Court wherein she turned hostile and admitted that she got married with petitioner no. 1 having one child, therefore the proceedings of aforesaid Sessions Case may be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned Counsel for petitioners relied on Dalbir Singh & Others v. State of Punjab and Another, Criminal Misc. No. M-27509 of 2015 decided on 15.09.2015 by Single Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. 6. Mr. Hari Kishan Sharma Learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 3/complainant Ram Prakash opposed the petition and submitted that respondent no. 2/victim/prosecutrix supported the prosecution case in her police statement and statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and thereafter if marriage took place then the same cannot be a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings. He further submits that at the time of offence the age of prosecutrix was 18 years and she got married in the year 2014 i.e. after the incident. He further submits that if respondent no. 2/prosecutrix resiled from her previous statement recorded under Section 164 and 161 Cr.P.C then Trial Court may prosecute her to maintain the santity of statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., this Court should not quash the criminal proceedings and matter may be decided by the Trial Court according to law and if while deciding the Sessions Case Learned Trial Court reaches on the conclusion that prosecutrix gave false statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. then she may be prosecuted. He further submits that the trial of Sessions Case is at fake end, therefore at this stage this Court should not quash the proceedings of Sessions Case. He further submits that the trial of Sessions Case is at fake end, therefore at this stage this Court should not quash the proceedings of Sessions Case. He further submits that the statement of prosecutrix on which petitioner rely were recorded during the trial of co-accused Jitendra, present petitioners are absconders and their trial has not been started yet, therefore the statement recorded during trial of co-accused Jitendra cannot be read against the present petitioners and on that basis the proceedings of sessions case cannot be quashed. 7. Learned PP Mr. Jitendra Shrimali also opposed the petition and submitted that petitioners are absconders, their trial has not been started yet and the statement recorded during trial of co-accused Jitendra cannot be read against the present petitioners and proceedings cannot be quashed on the basis of aforesaid statements. 8. Respondent no. 2 Ms. Shiv Bai Meena is also present in the person who supported the submissions made by Learned Counsel for the petitioners. 9. I have considered the submissions made by Learned Counsel for petitioners, Learned Counsel for respondent no. 3/complainant Mr. Hari Kishan Sharma and Learned PP Mr. Jitendra Shrimali. 10. Since respondent no. 2/prosecutrix/victim in her police statement and statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. supported the prosecution case and clearly stated that petitioners along with Jitendra abducted her on the pretext of dropping at college and thereafter gave threatening, thereafter in hilly area petitioner no. 1 committed rape with her, thereafter Jitendra committed rape and after that Ashok committed rape, as such respondent no. 2 prosecutrix alleged that petitioners committed gang rape with her. 11. In the matter of Gyan Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that :- "The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: 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 Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R 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 High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of 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. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 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 proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 12. Here in the case in hand, since there are serious allegations against the present petitioners for committing gang rape and petitioners have not been arrested yet, if after the incident respondent no. 2 contacted marriage with petitioner no. 1 in the year 2014 that cannot be a ground for quashing criminal proceedings. So far as statement of prosecutrix recorded during trial of co-accused Jitendra is concerned same cannot be read against the present petitioners as their trial has not been stared yet. So far as Dalbir Singh & Others v. State of Punjab and Another (supra) is concerned, the facts of that case are distinguishable from the case in hand as in the case in hand there is allegation regarding gang rape while in the case law cited by Learned Counsel for petitioners there was no allegation regarding gang rape, therefore it doesn't help the petitioners. In view of it, there is no merit in this Misc. Petition, the same is dismissed.