JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District in C.C.No.263 of 2017 and to quash the criminal proceedings.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the C.C.No.263 of 2017 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri for the offences under sections 294[b], 323, 324 and 506[ii] of IPC. 2. The allegations against the accused in the Final Report is that in a dispute between neighbours, the accused are said to have abused the defacto complainant and attacked her. 3. The petitioners along with the second respondent has filed Joint Compromise Memo wherein it has been stated that the petitioner and the second respondent are close relatives and on the advice of their elders, they have amicably settled the issues between themselves and hence, seek to quash the Final Report. 4. Mr. C.Thirunagaran, Special Sub Inspector of Police was present before this Court and he informed this Court that the defacto complainant and the petitioners had approached him and informed that since they have amicably settled the dispute between them, they he do not want to proceed further with the criminal proceedings. 5. The Defacto Complainant is also present before this Court at the time of hearing. This Court enquired the defacto complainant and she stated that they had amicably settled the dispute between themselves and she is not willing to proceed with the the criminal proceedings and seeks to quash the same. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that though the parties entered into a compromise while this case is pending, this Court, taking into account the seriousness of the offence has to consider the issue as to whether an offence of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties. 7. The main issue that requires the consideration of this Court is as to whether this Court can quash the criminal proceedings involving noncompoundable offences pending against the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath, reported in 2017 9 SCC 641 and in case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. The main issue that requires the consideration of this Court is as to whether this Court can quash the criminal proceedings involving noncompoundable offences pending against the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath, reported in 2017 9 SCC 641 and in case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported 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 offences against the society with overriding public interest even if it gets settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court. 8. In the present case, the offence in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant and quashing the proceedings, will not affect any overriding public interest in this case and no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the Final Report filed in the case in C.C.No. 263 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the case in C.C. No. 263 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri, is quashed. The Joint Compromise Memo filed by the petitioners and the second respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.