ORDER : Anand Byrareddy, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner is said to be accused at the instance of his wife - the complainant who had alleged that five years prior to the filing of the complaint, he had molested not only his stepdaughter, but he had also sexually abused his natural daughter as well born through the complainant. It is on this that a case had been instituted and it was committed to the Sessions Court in Special C.C. No. 249 of 2013 for offences punishable under Sections 354 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. While this criminal case was pending, it transpires that the complainant-mother of the alleged victims, had instituted proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and in those proceedings, the matter had been referred to mediation before the Mediation Centre, Bangalore, and it transpires that there was a settlement arrived at between the parties whereby it was agreed that the matters pending both before the Court dealing with the Domestic Violence Act as well as the criminal case in Special C.C. No. 249 of 2013 could be compounded. 3. Though the proceedings pertaining to the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act was indeed compounded, when an application was filed under Section 320(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in the Special C.C. No. 249 of 2013 under the POCSO Act for compounding the matter, the Sessions Court has taken a view that since the allegations are of a heinous offence, the question of composition would not arise and has refused to entertain any such prayer and has rejected the said application. It is that which is under challenge in the present petition. 4. Insofar as the composition of matters where allegations of offences punishable which are non-compoundable, the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012)10 SCC 303 , has held that though the law prescribes certain offences as being non-compoundable in nature, this would not preclude the High Court from exercising power under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. in quashing the criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction and that power is distinguished from the power under Section 320 of the Cr. P.C. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim of victim's family and tine offender have settled the dispute. 5. Here is a case where the victims and the victims' family have agreed to settle the dispute. But, the Court below has rightly held that the offences alleged were heinous offences and therefore, the question of composition, could not be applied. The Court below was right in its view that under Section 320 of Cr. P.C. the offence could not be compounded. The question therefore is, whether under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., this Court could quash the proceedings. 6. Though normally this could would not be inclined to quash the proceedings even if the parties had settled their matter at a mediation, there one other aspect which would indicate that the entire proceedings may result in a futility, for the reason that the seriousness of the offence gets aggravated in view of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act having been enacted and having come into force with effect from the year 2012. Such offences involving children are to be punished more strictly than was possible under the existing law. It is for that reason that the offences against children are considered to be of a more serious nature visiting the offender with a very stringent punishment. However, in the present case on hand, it is noticed that the complaint was of incidents which had occurred much prior to the coming into force of the 2012 Act, in which event, it cannot be said that the law has a retrospective effect and that it should be applied in respect of instances which had occurred prior to the Act coming into force. To that extent, the allegations could get diluted and the petitioner could be punished possibly under the Indian Penal Code in the absence of evidence. Except the self-serving testimony of the victims, nothing could be established possibly against the accused, by virtue of sheer lapse of time. Therefore, even if it could be considered that the offence was a heinous offence, the conviction of the accused is dim and hence, in view of the complainant seeking to withdraw from the case even if it could be prosecuted, it is quite possible that the complainant may not fully co-operate with the prosecution of the case and it would end in a futility. Therefore, this Court feels that in the interest of justice and in order to save much time and effort, it would be a wasted effort. The petition is allowed and the proceedings pending in Special C.C. No. 249 of 2013 registered by the Ashok Nagar Police Station stands quashed.