JUDGMENT :

Wanlura Diengdoh, J.

1. The Petitioner has approached this Court with an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings in Lumdiengjri P.S. Case No. 62(6) 2020 under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

2. Briefly stated, on 13.06.2020 at about 9.30 A.M., an incident of alleged molestation occurred at the Farmer's market Upper Shillong, where the victim has alleged that when she was alone at the stall of the accused carrying tea, the Petitioner touched her private parts, in reaction to which she slapped him and then went back to her room. On the same day, the FIR was filed before the Officer-In-charge which was registered as Lumdiengjri P.S. Case No. 62(6) 2020.

3. In course of investigation, the Petitioner and the alleged victim got together and along with the family members and elders of the village, have come to an understanding and realization that the incident occurred not because of any mala fide intention on the part of the Petitioner who is an old man of about 80 years old, but because of the circumstances surrounding the said occurrence.

4. Thereafter, the parties have come to an understanding and accordingly, a Compromise letter dated 14.06.2020 (Annexure-II of the petition) was made between the parties wherein, the alleged victim and the Petitioner herein have decided to settle their differences and to settle the matter amicably. This was reduced in writing and the same is being reproduced herein below:

"To whom it may concern

Compromise letter in connection with Lumdiengjri PS Case No. 62/6/2020 U/S. 8 POCSO Act.

This agreement of compromise made at Shillong on this day of 14.06.2020 between Miss Dairisa Kharrymba Complainant, Smti Wantina Kharrymba (Mother of complainant) and Rangshailang Kharrymba (older brother of the complainant) resident of 4 Mile Upper Shillong and Shri Edwin Nongkynrih of Laitlyngkot Village. Whereas we realized that the incident occurred as a result of accidental. Therefore, the dispute and differences here arisen to settle the case amiably and don't want to proceed.

5. Mr. K.Ch. Gautam, learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that from the facts and circumstances of the case, the alleged incident was purely accidental involving a senior citizen who, at the age of 80 years is not expected to exhibit any untoward behavior towards anybody much less the alleged victim.

6. It is also submitted that inspite of the compromise between the parties, if the criminal proceeding continues, it would only be a source of harassment to the Petitioner since it is evidently clear that the case would only result in acquittal.

7. The learned counsel has also cited the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.: (2014) 6 SCC 466, paragraph 29, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain principles and guidelines, which should be observed while quashing of FIR pertaining to non-compound-able offences. It is further submitted that this Court in the case of Saindur Mame Kshiar Vs. State of Meghalaya: 2020 (3) GLT (ML) 359 : Crl. Petn. No. 28 of 2019 was pleased to quash the FIR relying on the case of Narinder Singh (supra).

8. Another case cited by the Petitioner is the case of Shankar Swami Harijan & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.: wherein, in a proceeding by the Special Judge (POCSO), the parties therein have settled their differences amicably by way of mutual settlement, the Court relying in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab: (2008) 4 SCC 582 an