ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings. 2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 458 of 2016 of Valayam Police Station registered at the instance of the 2nd respondent herein alleging offence punishable under Section 354 (A) of the IPC. 3. The prosecution allegation is that on 4.10.2016 at about 9.30 a.m. while the 2nd respondent was walking through the road, the petitioner came in a bike bearing registration No. KL-18M-7087 and after making physical contact made sexual overtures at the 2nd respondent. 4. Heard the submissions advanced. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with slight mental ailments and 17 years of age. According to the learned counsel, later the de facto complainant came to know about the ailment of the petitioner and decided to give the whole incident a quietus. The 2nd respondent appeared through counsel and referring to Annexure A2 affidavit submits that she has no subsisting grievance as against the petitioner and that she does not wish that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner should continue any further. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that no other cases are reported against the petitioner. 7. The position with regard to quashing of proceedings on the basis of compromise between the parties is by now well settled. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. It was observed as follows: "61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above questions is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings." 8. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the pertinent observations which are as under: xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice. (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 9. The offence committed by the petitioner cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society. It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise, persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak. 10. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-I FIR in Crime No. 458 of 2016 of Valayam Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner are quashed.