ORDER : M. Nirmal Kumar, J. The petitioner/accused facing trial in C.C.No.1529 of 2024 for offences under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 78 of BNS , 2023 and Section 4 of TAMIL NADU PROHIBITION OF HARASSMENT OF WOMEN ACT , 2002 filed this quash petition. 2.The case against the petitioner is that the petitioner and the defacto complainant/second respondent knew each other in the year 2023 and later, the same developed into a friendship. Thereafter, due to difference of opinion, they discontinued their friendship. Subsequently, the petitioner followed the defacto complainant continuously and posted defamatory contents against her in the social media. While so, on 17.08.2024, at about 3.00 pm, while the defacto complainant was on the way to her house along with driver, the petitioner waylaid and abused them in filthy language and also threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, lodged a complaint. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that based on the complaint, FIR registered and final report filed, which was taken on file in C.C.No.1529 of 2024 by the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore. He further submitted that the welfare and future of the petitioner and the defacto complainant has to be considered. The parties arrived at mutual compromise and decided to resolve the dispute amicably among themselves. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant submitted that on the intervention of elders, both the parties amicably settled the issue among themselves. Further, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that the defacto complainant is not willing to continue the relationship and to pursue the complaint and has no objection to quash the criminal proceedings. Hence, they seek to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner and in this regard, Joint compromise memo entered between them, which is scanned and reproduced hereunder: 5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for 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 offences of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties. 6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7.The case is still at the stage of trial. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves. 6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7.The case is still at the stage of trial. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves. 8.The petitioner and the defacto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court through video conferencing and were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Mr.Rajesh Kumar, HC 2533, E2, Peelamedu L & O police station, Coimbatore. 9.On being enquired by this Court, the defacto complainant stated that she has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner and she is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seeks to quash the same. 10.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 petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujarat , reported in ( 2017) 9 SCC 641 , has given sufficient guidelines that must be taken into consideration by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 BNSS), 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 they get settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court. 11.In the present case, the offence in question is purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent 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 proceedings pending against the petitioner in S.C.No.1529 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore. 12.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in S.C.No.1529 of 2024 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore, is quashed as against the petitioner. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 12.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in S.C.No.1529 of 2024 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore, is quashed as against the petitioner. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13.The affidavit and the Joint Compromise memo filed by the petitioner and the second respondent/defacto complainant for compromising the offences shall form part of the records.