6. “It is by now well settled that grave and serious offences as the one under Sec.376 (rape) of the I.P.C. cannot be the subject matter of quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between the accused and the victim. {see Shimbhu & Anr. v. State of Haryana [2014 (13) SCC 318], Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat [(2017) 9 SCC 641],Anita Maria Dias v. State of Maharashtra [(2018) 3 SCC 290], Sebastian @ Solly v. State of Kerala [2015 (1) KLJ 384, etc.}. However, this Court has held in various decisions including the decisions as in Freddy @ Antony Francis & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr. [2017 KHC 344 = 2018 (1) KLD 558), Denu P.Thampi v. Ms.X, [2019(3) KHC 199], etc. that the exception to the above approach could be in cases where the accused has married the defacto complainant and they have decided to settle all the disputes and for the predominant purpose of the welfare of the defacto complainant/victim, to ensure her better future life. It is only just and proper that this Court in exercise of the extra ordinary inherent powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. may quash the impugned criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between the parties in such cases where the accused is alleged to have committed penetrative sexual assault/rape on a victim/minor victim on the assurance of the marriage, etc. and where the marriage between the accused and the victim is subsequently solemnized. That mainly applies in the case where the marriage is conducted after the lady victim has also attained the age of 18 years. But it has to be noted that in the present case, the allegation is that the families on both sides had arranged the marriage between the petitioner/accused, then aged 25 years and the 2nd respondent lady defacto complainant, then aged 17 years, they had entered into sexual relationship only after the solemnization of the marriage, and she has given birth to a child after she has attained the majority age of 18 years.
