JUDGMENT : Pranjal Das, J. Heard Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. S.I. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioners are seeking quashing of charge sheet No. 18/2021 dated 31.01.2021, for the offence under Section 493/376/354 against the petitioner No. 1 and under Section 294/354/323/307/34 against the petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4, who are stated to be the family members of the petitioner No. 1. 3. Pursuant to filing of charge sheet, Sessions Case No. 53/2022 is stated to be pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in the district of Kamrup, Amingaon and the case is stated to be at the stage of consideration of charge. 4. On 15.10.2020, the victim as a complainant lodged a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rangia against the petitioner, his mother, Gol Sehera Biwi, sister, Padumi Begum and brother, Sayedur Rahman alleging that she and the petitioner had a love relationship for last 4 years and though, the petitioner promised to marry her, he did not marry her and had physical relations with her on the pretext of marrying her. In her complaint, she also stated that the petitioner took her to his house on 16.08.2020, but the other family members of the petitioner refused to accept her and physically assaulted her. The petitioner took back the complainant and dropped her at her residence on the same day and later, the brother and the other family members of the petitioner entered into an agreement with the family members of the complainant, stating that the petitioner will marry the complainant within 2 (two) months. But as per the assurance made by the petitioner, he did not marry her after the expiry of the said 2 months from 16.08.2020. She lodged the said complaint praying before the learned Magistrate to register a case and to investigate the matter through the police personnel of Rangia Police Station and also to punish the accused persons of the case. 5. The informant has been impleaded as respondent No. 2 and she has entered appearance through her learned counsel Pursuant to her appearance through her learned counsel, the informant/respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit in which she has stated about not wanting to pursue the case. 5. The informant has been impleaded as respondent No. 2 and she has entered appearance through her learned counsel Pursuant to her appearance through her learned counsel, the informant/respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit in which she has stated about not wanting to pursue the case. The relevant paragraphs 6 and 7 may be reproduced herein below- “6. That at present, I am pursing my studies in law and I want to continue my studies without any burden of thoughts in respect of the instant case. Moreover, I want to pass the memories of all the incidents that had happened in the past in respect of our relationship. 7. That, therefore, I do not want to pursue the instant case further and I have decided to take back my complaint against all the accused/persons of the instant case as same was filed in a fit of rage and during the course of our painful breakup.” 6. During investigation, the statement of the informant/victim was recorded before learned JMFC. I have perused the said statement in which she stated about her relationship with the petitioner No. 1 for four years followed by elopement in August, 2020. It has also emerged from the statement about her relationship, graduating into physical relationship, but that, she agreed for the same as the petitioner No. 1 promised to marry her, but subsequently stopped contact with her. She stated in her statement before learned JMFC that, he did not have relationship with her forcefully, but she agreed on his assurance of marriage. 7. The law regarding the quashing of criminal proceeding pursuant to settlement has seen a catena of decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, with some of the leading decisions being State of MP vs. Laxmi Narayan , reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 , Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab , reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab , reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 . Though the theory of quashing of proceedings pursuant to settlement has been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but certain exceptions have been carved out. Though the theory of quashing of proceedings pursuant to settlement has been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but certain exceptions have been carved out. The philosophy behind these exceptions is, that quashing should be applied to offences of a grave nature having social implications, where a mere settlement would not justify the quashing of the criminal proceeding, and where the societal interests demand that the criminal litigation should be allowed to proceed to its logical conclusion in its normal course, irrespective of its outcome. 8. In this case, though Section 376 IPC has been given, but from the materials, I find that it is in the context of the statements from the informant, that she had agreed for the relationship with the promise of marriage made by the petitioner No. 1, which he did not keep subsequently. 9. In any case, it is well settled that when such a promise of marriage is made, and solely on the basis of such a promise of marriage, the girl agrees for such a physical relationship, then by legal fiction that act would amount to an offence under Section 376 IPC, if the promise is found to be false from the very inception, as in such a case, it would not be a valid consent in any manner under Section 90 IPC (as if existed then) – presently, Section 28 BNS , 2023. 10. In the instant case, I take note of the statement of the informant, that she is pursuing some professional course, and therefore, she wants to get over this matter, and it emerges from her statement that she wants to leave behind these matters and move on with life. This aspect of the matter cannot be overlooked, as allowing the trial to proceed will invariably involve her deposition as well. 11. In the instant case, based on the facts and circumstances which have emerged on the basis of the materials, I am of the considered opinion that – in the context of the affidavit made by the informant, which has been supported by the learned counsel appearing on her behalf, the possibility of conviction would be extremely remote in the event of trial proceeding. 12. 12. Moreover, because the alleged offences have occurred in the backdrop of a legitimate love affair between the parties, which unfortunately soured and the informant has also stated that she does not want to look at the past – therefore, quashing the criminal proceedings in such a backdrop would not, in my view, be detrimental to societal interest, as well. 13. Accordingly, in the entire facts and circumstances, the criminal petition is accepted , and the entire criminal proceedings, being Sessions Case No. 53/2022, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rangia, Kamrup, arising out of Charge sheet No. 18/2021 dated 31.01.2021 (corresponding to Rangia P.S. Case No.981/2020), shall stand quashed and set aside in the entirety. 14. The instant criminal petition stands allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid terms.