ORDER : Easwaran S., J. The petitioners are accused in Crime No.509 of 2023 of Kondotty Police Station, Malappuram and pending in C.C No.1739 of 2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code . 2. Pending trial of the offences, the petitioners as well as the de facto complainant have entered into a settlement out of court and settled the disputes. The de facto complainant accordingly has sworn to an affidavit stating that the matter has been amicably settled and that she has no objection in this Court quashing the proceedings against the petitioners. 3. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 28.01.2025, the learned Public Prosecutor was required to obtain instructions on the veracity of the affidavit filed by the de facto complainant. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Public Prosecutor reported that the affidavit sworn to by the de facto complainant is genuine and that the issues have been settled between the parties. 4. The guidelines as regards the circumstances warranting exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, for quashing offences which are non compoundable were succinctly laid down by the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab [ (2014) 6 SCC 466 ]. Still further, in Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ], the Supreme Court affirmed the view expressed by five Bench of the Punjab High Court in Kulwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab [( 2007) 4 CTC 769] wherein it was held that even offences against human body could be compounded if the settlement entered is genuine and voluntary. 5. In Madan Mohan Abbot Vs State of Punjab [(2008)4 SCC 582], the Supreme Court once again reiterated that the offence involving personal injuries should be allowed to be compounded keeping in mind the fact that even on completion of trial there will be no possibility of conviction. 6. In this case, this Court finds that the offence under Section 406 of IPC is compoundable, whereas the offence under Section 498 A read with Section 34 IPC is not compoundable. 6. In this case, this Court finds that the offence under Section 406 of IPC is compoundable, whereas the offence under Section 498 A read with Section 34 IPC is not compoundable. However, taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and the learned Public Prosecutor, and also the affidavit filed on behalf of the de facto complainant, and also since the de facto complaint has given statement before the Station House officer that the affidavit sworn to by her is voluntary and genuine, this Court is of the considered view that there will be no useful purpose served in proceeding with the trial of the case inasmuch as there is no possibility of the trial ending in conviction of the accused and that the entire process will be abuse of process of the court. 7. In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that it is a fit case where the case against the petitioners requires to be quashed, in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 . Accordingly, this Crl.M.C is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1739 of 2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram in Crime No.509 of 2023 of the Kondotty Police Station, Malappuram is quashed. Crl. M.C is ordered accordingly.