JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for records pertain to the case in Crime No.329 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.329 of 2019 registered on the file of the first respondent. The victim as well as the defacto complainant were present in person before this Court. The petitioner and the victim got married to each other and the same has also been subsequently registered. A copy of the marriage certificate has been enclosed in the typed set of papers. The parties have also filed a joint memo of compromise. A female child, namely, Kayal was also born. The child is 1 ½ years old. The victim and the defacto complainant are living together as husband and wife. The defacto complainant does not want to pursue the complaint. 2. I am conscious that the offences under the POCSO Act are not compoundable. However, a learned Judge of this Court, vide order dated 27.01.2021 in the decision reported in CDJ 2021 MHC 636 (Vijayalakshmi Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police) had held as follows :- “19.The main issue that requires the consideration of this Court is as to whether this Court can quash the criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences pending against the second respondent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujarath reported in 2017 9 SCC 641 and in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhruv Gurjar and another reproted in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10 has given sufficient guidelines that must be taken into consideration by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash non-compoundable offences. One very important test that has been laid down is that the Court must necessarily examine if the crime in question is purely individual in nature or a crime against the society with overriding public interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the offences against the society with overriding public interest even if it gets settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court. 20. In the present case, the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves the second petitioner and the second respondent and their respective families only. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the offences against the society with overriding public interest even if it gets settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court. 20. In the present case, the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves the second petitioner and the second respondent and their respective families only. It involves the future of two young who are still in their early twenties. The second respondent is working as an auto driver to eke his livelihood. Quashing the proceedings, will not affect any overriding public interest in this case and it will in fact pave way for the second petitioner and the second respondent to settle down in their life and look for better future prospects. No useful purpose will be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings and keeping these proceedings will only swell the mental agony of the victim girl and her mother and not to forget the second respondent as well.” 3. Respectfully adopting the very same approach, I quash the impugned proceedings also. The parties have also filed a joint memo of compromise before this Court. The same is taken on record. The impugned proceedings stand quashed. This Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.