JUDGMENT : A.K. MISHRA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate. 2. Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of petitioner no. 3. All the petitioners are accused persons in G.R. Case No. 1031 of 2012 in the Court of the J.M.F.C. Dhamnagar. Prayer has been made in this proceeding to quash the order taking cognizance on 5.12.2015 by the learned J.M.F.C. Dhamnagar for the offence under section 363/366/506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code for which the FIR was lodged by the father of the victim vide Dhamnagar P.S. Case No. 109 dated 20.6.2012. 3. The informant has filed affidavit vide Annexure-B stating that his daughter - victim had married out of love to petitioner no. 3 and without knowing such fact he filed the FIR. The victim herself in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. has admitted such marriage which was solemnized on 1.6.2012 at Kolkata. She has also stated that they were blessed with a son on 28.9.2013. It is advanced that the parties have been residing happily in their marital home and because of that the continuance of the criminal proceeding would be an abuse of the process of the court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision reported in Srikanta Mallik and Another vs. State of Orissa and Others, 2018 (1) OLR 822 to contend that in a similar circumstances proceeding was quashed earlier by this Court. 5. In the decision reported in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 , Hon’ble Apex Court has prescribed the principles to quash the proceeding in case of settlement between the parties in the matrimonial dispute. 6. Recently, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Kumar Sharma and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another in Criminal Appeal No. 1599 of 2019 and SLP (Crl.) No. 155 of 2019 vide order dated 21.10.2019 reiterated as follows:- “The High Court despite this arrangement arrived at between the parties, however, declined to quash the proceedings. 6. Recently, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Kumar Sharma and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another in Criminal Appeal No. 1599 of 2019 and SLP (Crl.) No. 155 of 2019 vide order dated 21.10.2019 reiterated as follows:- “The High Court despite this arrangement arrived at between the parties, however, declined to quash the proceedings. In our opinion, the High Court should have taken note of the fact that the parties have amicably resolved all their differences and consciously chose to unconditionally drop all proceedings related to marriage inter se including the criminal action initiated by the complainant-respondent No. 2.” 7. Keeping the settlement between the parties having marital relevancy to a family having child, it is felt that the continuance of the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 1031 of 2012 would cause oppression and prejudice and for that the same is required to be quashed by invoking the jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. Accordingly, the order dated 5.12.2015 passed in G.R. Case No. 1031 of 2012 by the learned JMFC, Dhamnagar is hereby quashed. 9. In the result, the Crl. MC is allowed. 10. Issue urgent certified copy on proper application.