JUDGMENT : I.A No. 460 of 2019 and I.A No. 524 of 2019 1. The petitioner, who has been convicted for offence under section 138 of N.I Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days with fine of Rs.4,05,000/-, approached the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2018, however, her appeal was dismissed by the impugned order dated 22.09.2018. A compromise petition vide I.A No. 460 of 2019 has been filed; it has been signed by the petitioner as well as the complainant. In support of this compromise petition both the parties have filed their separate affidavits. They have also produced photo-copies of their Aadhaar Card. It is stated that both the parties have amicably settled the matter and to demonstrate her bonafide the petitioner has already handed over a draft for Rs. 1,00,000/- to O.P No.2 on 10.01.2019. In view of the aforesaid facts I.A No. 524 of 2019 seeking exemption from surrendering is allowed. However, in the facts of the case, particularly, in view of the settlement between the parties the petitioner is not required to execute bond or seek bail. Criminal Revision No. 15 of 2019 The petitioner as well as the complainant-O.P No. 2 are present in the Court. O.P No. 2 is represented through Mr. Arbind Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel. 2. Referring to the decisions in “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another” reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and “Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab” reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , Mr. D. K. Chakraverty, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in exercise of powers under section 482 Cr.P.C in view of the compromise between the parties which would facilitate peace and harmony amongst the members of the society, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence can be set-aside by this Court. 3. In “Narinder Singh” case the Supreme Court has observed that in the following circumstances a criminal proceeding can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of powers under section 482 Cr.P.C; “29. 3. In “Narinder Singh” case the Supreme Court has observed that in the following circumstances a criminal proceeding can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of powers under section 482 Cr.P.C; “29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: 29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. 29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. 29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. 29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.” 4. The object behind the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is to ensure that the parties stand by their commitments in a commercial transaction. Now since the petitioner has agreed to pay the entire amount which O.P No. 2 on her own volition accepts, in view of the judgment in “Narinder Singh” case, I am of the opinion that this criminal revision petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Now since the petitioner has agreed to pay the entire amount which O.P No. 2 on her own volition accepts, in view of the judgment in “Narinder Singh” case, I am of the opinion that this criminal revision petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 15 of 2019 is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 08.02.2018 passed in C/1 Case No. 4338 of 2013/T.R No. 20 of 2018 are set-aside. Consequently, judgment dated 22.09.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2018 is set-aside.