ORDER : This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners in the case S.C.No.862/2018 pending on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Paravur. 2. The petitioners are accused 1 to 4 in the aforesaid case. The allegation against the petitioners is that they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 323, 324, 365, 394 and 307 read with 34 I.P.C. 3. The prosecution case is as follows: On 03.03.2017, at about 21.30 hours, the accused together wrongfully obstructed the car driven by the de facto complainant at the place Champannur. They assaulted him with sticks and caused hurt to him. They robbed the golden bracelet worn by him and the mobile phone in his possession. Thereafter, they immersed his face in the water in the nearby canal and made attempt to murder him. They laid the de facto complainant in his car and drove the car away from that place and abandoned the car at the public road at Angamaly with the de facto complainant inside it. 4. The proceedings against the petitioners in the case are sought to be quashed on the ground that the matter has been settled between the petitioners and the de facto complainant. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the third respondent/de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. The third respondent, who is the de facto complainant, has filed an affidavit stating that the dispute has been settled between him and the petitioners and that he has got no grievance against the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, in the light of the settlement reached between the de facto complainant and the petitioners, no useful purpose would be served by the continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that grave offences are allegedly committed by the petitioners and that it would not be in the interests of justice to order premature termination of the prosecution against them. 8. 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. 8. 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 the 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. Offence under Section 307 I.P.C would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences. Such an offence has 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 I.P.C in the chargesheet filed against the accused. It would be open to this Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 I.P.C 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 I.P.C. For this purpose, it would be open to this Court to verify whether there is medical evidence and other evidence to prove the charge against the accused. While deciding whether to exercise the 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 chargesheet 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 only after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material collected by the investigating agency (See Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab: (2014) 6 SCC 466 ). 9. It is not correct to state that in every case where the complainant has entered into a compromise with the accused, there may not be any conviction. 9. It is not correct to state that in every case where the complainant has entered into a compromise with the accused, there may not be any conviction. In a given case, it may happen that the prosecution still can prove the guilt by leading cogent evidence and examining the other witnesses and the relevant evidence/material, more particularly when the dispute is not a commercial transaction and/or of a civil nature and/or is not a private wrong (See State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar : AIR 2019 SC 1106 ). 10. Commission of an offence under Section 307 I.P.C will have a serious impact on the society at large. Settlement between the parties in relation to such offence cannot be given the seal of approval by the Court (See State of Madhya Pradesh v. Manish : (2015) 8 SCC 307 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kalyan Singh : AIR 2019 SC 312 ). Crime against the society cannot be wiped out merely due to compromise between the individuals involved. 11. In the instant case, there is allegation that the petitioners had followed the car driven by the de facto complainant and obstructed his car and brutally assaulted him with sticks and tried to kill him by suffocating him by immersing his face in water. There is also allegation that they robbed the golden bracelet and mobile phone from his possession. The investigating agency has collected medical evidence to prove the treatment of the victim. According to the prosecution, the bracelet and mobile phone robbed from the possession of the de facto complainant have been seized from the first accused. In view of such evidence proposed to be adduced by the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused, in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (supra), I find that this is not a fit case in which the power of this court under Section 482 of the Code can be invoked to quash the case against the petitioners on the basis of the settlement reached between them and the de facto complainant. The petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. The petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if this Court is not inclined to allow the petition, a direction may be given to the trial court to dispose of the case within a time limit to be fixed by this court. 13. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to dispose of the case against the petitioners within a period of six months from the date of producing a certified copy of this order before that court, provided the petitioners shall co-operate with the trial of the case.