ORDER : 1. This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash the proceedings in Crime No.345 of 2020 of Neyyattinkara Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram against the petitioner on the ground of settlement between the parties. 2. The petitioner is the 3 rd accused. The 2 nd respondent is the de facto complainant. 3. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. 4. The 2 nd respondent entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by him is also produced. 5. I have heard Sri.J.Jayakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.M.Sreekumar, the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent and Sri.Sangeetha Raj N.R, the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the 2 nd respondent would show that the entire dispute between the the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent has been amicably settled and the 2 nd respondent has decided not to proceed with the criminal proceedings further against the petitioner. This Court in Sajeev v. State of Kerala , 2022 (2) KLT 861 has held that the proceedings against one of the accused alone can be quashed on the ground of settlement depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The learned Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was enquired into through the investigating officer and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein he reported that the matter was amicably settled. 7. The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab , 2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC), Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another , (2014) 6 SCC 466 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others , (2019) 5 SCC 688 has held that the High Court by invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to ensure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court. 8. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A1. 8. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A1. The offences in question do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra). For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter any further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.345 of 2020 of Neyyattinkara Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram hereby stands quashed against the petitioner alone.