Judgment : 1. This petition is filed by accused 1 and 2 seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings in S.C.No.186 of 2007 on the file of the learned Assistant Session Judge, Hosur. 2. The charges as against the first petitioner are that he committed the offences punishable under Sections 458, 506 and 376 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Women (Prevention of Harressment) Act. The second accused stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioners have sought quashment of the aforesaid criminal proceedings, which culminated in S.C.No. 186 of 2007 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Hosur on two grounds. The first ground is that the major offence under Section 376 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code is not at all made out as against the first accused. The second ground is that the matter was amicably compromised between the petitioners and the de facto complainant. 4. The de facto complainant has in fact filed a separate affidavit to the effect that she had clinched a compromise with the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit referring the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, who is the second respondent herein and her statement recorded by the investigating agency under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that no case has been made out for offences under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. The first information report and the statement of the relevant witnesses may disclose prima facie the commission of an offence under Section354 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code, which is compoundable in nature. He would also refer to a separate affidavit filed by the de facto complainant and would submit that the case has been effectively compromised. Therefore, he would contend that it is a fit case where this Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the entire criminal proceedings. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant, who is the second respondent herein would contend that the second respondent is solemnizing her marriage on 16.2.2008. She has also amicably settled the dispute with the petitioners herein. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant, who is the second respondent herein would contend that the second respondent is solemnizing her marriage on 16.2.2008. She has also amicably settled the dispute with the petitioners herein. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that this Court may invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quash the criminal proceedings as against the petitioners. 7. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would contend that the charge under Section 376 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be compounded and therefore the quashment sought mainly on the ground that the compromise was arrived at between the de facto complainant and the petitioners cannot be entertained by this Court 8. The entire text of the first information report as well as the statement of the second respondent under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was thoroughly scanned by this Court. It has been averred to by the second respondent that the first petitioner had attempted to misbehave with her. There was no allegation of any attempt of rape found either in the first information report or in the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court is at a loss to understand as to how the first respondent has chosen to lay final report with the aforesaid materials on record that a case has been made out prima facie that an offence under Section 376 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code was made out as against the first petitioner herein. It is found that except the version of the second respondent and her father, who has also spoken in the same line, no other material is available on record to even distantly show that an offence under Section 376 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code was made out as against the first petitioner. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the materials collected by the first respondent would show prima facie that an offence under Section 354 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code along with other offence alone was made out. 9. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the materials collected by the first respondent would show prima facie that an offence under Section 354 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code along with other offence alone was made out. 9. In view of the above, the Court finds that the charge under Section 376 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code taken on file by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Hosur as against the first petitioner is found not sustainable. It is held that only on offence under Section 354 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code alone is prima facie made out as against the first petitioner. 10. Now coming to the question of giving permission to compound the offence, the Court finds that the other offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is also found to be non-compoundable. Considering the nature of the offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and the compromise effected between the petitioners and the second respondent and the impending marriage of the second respondent to be solemnized very shortly, the Court finds that the petitioners and the second respondent will have to be permitted to compound the offences under Section 354 read with 511, 458, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code now made out on the basis of the materials available on record. 11. Permitting the petitioners and the second respondent to compound the offences as detailed above, the whole criminal proceedings, which culminated in S.C.No. 186 of 2007 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Hosur stand quashed. 12. Accordingly, this criminal Original Petition stands allowed.