ORDER : M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J. The petitioner/accused in crime No.108 of 2026 for offences under Sections 115(2) of BNS , 2023 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman (Amendment) Act, 2002 filed this quash petition. 2. The case against the petitioners is that On 17.04.2026 when the defacto complainant was travelling with her husband on a two wheeler on 16.04.2026 at about 22.30 hours along E.V.K.Sampath road, the defacto complainant requested her husband to stop the vehicle due to some discomfort, as she was 7 months pregnant. At that time, the petitioners were travelling on a two wheeler in an intoxicated condition drove the two wheeler near the defacto complainant and the first petitioner, who was sitting in the middle of the two wheeler assaulted the complainant on her back and proceeded ahead. When the defacto complainant intimated the same to her husband and other relatives who were travelling with her, the defacto complainant along with her husband confronted the petitioners near AP road Rengayya street junction and at that time, the first petitioner gave evasive replies and acted in a rude manner against the defacto complainant by making derogatory comments. Hence, complaint lodged. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are police constables and they were travelling on their two wheeler on 16.04.2026 and at that time, the first petitioner was talking to the other petitioners, who was riding the two wheeler and the first petitioner, while explaining about something, had waved his hand and the same had inadvertently touched the defacto complainant. Hence, there was a some wordy quarrel between the petitioners and the defacto complainant and her husband. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint. Now, after the intervention of elders and their friends, the parties have now amicably settled the issue among themselves. Hence, they seek to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners and in this regard, a joint memo of compromise entered into between them, which was scanned and reproduced hereunder: 4.The learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that based on the complaint, case registered in crime No.108 of 2026 for offences under Section 115(2) of BNS , 2023 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman (Amendment) Act, 2002 and the case is at investigation stage. The departmental action was taken against the petitioners. Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that based on the complaint, case registered in crime No.108 of 2026 for offences under Section 115(2) of BNS , 2023 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman (Amendment) Act, 2002 and the case is at investigation stage. The departmental action was taken against the petitioners. He further submitted that though the parties entered into a compromise, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, has to consider whether offences of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties. 5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6.The case is still at the stage of investigation. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves. 7.The petitioner and the de facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective counsel. 8.On interaction by this Court, the de facto complainant stated that she is willing to settle the dispute with the petitioners and she is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings against the petitioners and therefore, seeks to quash the same. 9 . Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the case pending, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. In the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 9 SCC 641 -( Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath ), and after exercising due caution as advised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10 , this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashes the case in crime No.108 of 2026 pending on the file of the first respondent 10.In the present case, the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioners 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 petitioners in crime No.108 of 2026 pending on the file of the first respondent police. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners in crime No.108 of 2026 pending on the file of the first respondent police. 11.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings crime No.108 of 2026 pending on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 12.The affidavit and the Memo of Compromise filed by the petitioner and the second respondent defacto complainant for compromising the offences shall form part of the records.