The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 2426 of 2016 of Chengannur Police Station, which has been subsequently transferred and registered as Crime No.312/2017 of Thiruvalla Police Station for offence punishable under Sec.376 of IPC. The main plea made by the the petitioner is that the impugned criminal proceedings may be quashed as the entire disputes between the petitioner and 2^nd respondent-defacto complainant (victim) has been settled and the 2^nd respondent has sworn to Anx-A4 affidavit stating that the matter is settled and she has no interest to prosecute the matter any further. It was held by the Apex Court and various High Courts in a catena of decisions that the plea made for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between the accused and lady defacto complainant may not be invoked in cases where the offence alleged are heinous and grave like the offence under Sec.376 of the IPC (rape). It has also been held by this Court that exception to the approach could be made in cases where the accused has married the lady defacto complainant and the latter says that the matter has been settled and it is better for her future marital life, the impugned criminal proceedings could be quashed, etc. However in the instant case the parties have no case that the petitioner- accused has married the 2^nd respondent-defacto complainant. In the light of these aspects the plea for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings for offence punishable under Sec.376 of the IPC on the ground of settlement between the parties cannot be entertained in the facts and circumstances of this case.

2. Apart from the plea of quashment on the basis of settlement, the petitioner has got independent grounds on merits, more particularly, that even if the allegations raised by the 2^nd respondent in the impugned criminal proceedings are admitted to be correct, still no offence under Sec.376 of the IPC is not made out as the indisputable facts would disclose that the instances have occurred mainly on the basis of consensual sexual relationship between the parties. In this regard the petitioner would point out that it has been held by the Apex Court and various High Courts including this Court that there is vital distinction between the rape and consensual sexual relationship and in the latter case where the lady defacto complainant has voluntarily entered into consensual sexual relationship with the accused, then it cannot be said that the aspect is covered by Sec.90 of the IPC, that there is any misconception of facts and that in such cases the impugned criminal proceedings could be interdicted.

3. The learned Prosecutor would submit that such grounds and contentions have not been urged and adverted to in the present criminal miscellaneous case and that the petitioner cannot be permitted to urge such new grounds which have not been urged properly in the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to file a fresh Criminal Miscellaneous Case under

Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C to seek quashment of the impugned criminal proceeding on the ground that the alleged incidents had occurred on the consensual sexual relationship between the parties and therefore the offence under Sec.376 of the IPC is not made out, etc.

4. Having heard both sides, it is ordered that liberty is accorded to the petitioner to urge other valid contentions if the same are available in law for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings by filing any such appropriate proceedings in that regard. Registry may return back the certified copies of Anxs-A1 to A3 and the original of Anx-A4 affidavit to the petitioner's counsel, if a request in that regard is made. However, the Registry will ensure that photo