JUDGMENT : 1. The instant criminal petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, ['the Code' and/or 'the CrPC', for short] is preferred by two petitioners viz. [1] Sri Vaibhav Jain, and [2] Sri Bhupendra Singh Rathore, seeking quashing and setting aside of a First Information Report [FIR] dated 12.02.2020, registered as Chumukedima Police Station Case no. 16/2020 [corresponding G.R. Case no. 193/2020] on 22.02.2020, for offences under Sections 120B/406/409/420/467/477A, Indian Penal Code [IPC] and Section 138 r/w Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended, and the criminal proceedings arising out of the said FIR. 2. The petitioners have been arraigned as accused in the First Information Report [FIR] lodged by one Sri Bajrang Lal [the respondent no. 2] as the informant projecting himself as the Manager and the authorized person of one M/s Sitaram Mittal, a proprietorship firm. Based on the said FIR lodged, on 12.02.2020, before the Officer In- Charge, Chumukedima Police Station, the crime case being Chumukedima Police Station Case no. 16/2020 [corresponding G.R. Case no. 193/2020] has come to be registered for the alleged offences, mentioned hereinabove. 3. After registration of the FIR as a crime case, the third accused person arraigned in the FIR as accused viz. Sri Ankit Khandelwal was arrested pursuant to issuance of warrant of arrest and transit remand/production warrant against all the 3 [three] accused persons by an order dated 27.02.2022 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate [CJM], Dimapur [‘the trial court’, for short] and the said arrested accused person was produced after arrest, before the learned trial court on 04.03.2020. 4. The petitioners have contended that the respondent no. 2-informant as the complainant had earlier, on 03.09.2019, instituted a complaint case before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate [CJM], Dimapur [the trial court] impleading the aforementioned arrested accused person viz. Sri Ankit Khandelwal as the accused no. 1 and the petitioner no. 1 herein as the accused no. 2. 5. The records go to indicate that the said complaint petition was registered and numbered as C.R. 03/2020 [C.R. 35/2019]. As it transpires from the order dated 03.09.2019 passed in Complaint Case no. C.R. 03/2020 [C.R. 35/2019] [Annexure-3 to the criminal petition], the learned trial court after perusal of the contents of the complaint along with the document annexed thereto and after recording the initial deposition of the complainant [the respondent no. As it transpires from the order dated 03.09.2019 passed in Complaint Case no. C.R. 03/2020 [C.R. 35/2019] [Annexure-3 to the criminal petition], the learned trial court after perusal of the contents of the complaint along with the document annexed thereto and after recording the initial deposition of the complainant [the respondent no. 2 herein] under Section 200, CrPC, took cognizance on the complaint and after finding a prima facie case about commission of offences under Section 138 r/w Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended [‘the N.I. Act’, for short], issued process [summons] against the two accused persons named in the said complaint calling for their appearance to stand the trial. 6. On receipt of the process [summons] from the learned trial court, the petitioner no. 1 herein being the accused no. 2, had entered appearance in Complaint Case no. C.R. 03/2020 [C.R. 35/2019] through his engage counsel. 7. The materials on record also go to show that the two accused persons arraigned in the complaint case i.e. Complaint Case no. C.R. 03/2020 [C.R. 35/2019], had preferred a criminal revision petition under Section 379 r/w Section 399 of the Code before the Court of learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dimapur [‘the revisional court’, for short] against the order dated 03.09.2019 passed by the learned trial court. The said criminal revision petition was registered and numbered as Criminal Revision no. 02/2019. By an order dated 04.11.2019 passed in Criminal Revision no. 02/2019, the learned revisional court issued notice to the complainant viz. Sri Bajrang Lal [the respondent no. 2-informant herein] making the notice returnable on 05.12.2019 and in the meantime, while calling for the LCR, the learned revisional court stayed the further proceedings of the complaint case, Complaint Case no. C.R. 03/2020 [C.R. 35/2019] till the returnable date. 8. During the pendency of the aforesaid complaint case, the FIR seeking quashing of which the instant criminal petition has been preferred, came to be lodged on 12.02.2020 by the respondent no. 2-informant – Sri Bajrang Lal, who was also the complainant in the complaint case. After the registration of the FIR as Chumukedima Police Station Case no. 16/2020 [corresponding to G.R. Case no. 193/2020], one of the accused persons named in the FIR viz. Sri Ankit Khandelwal was arrested in the manner, indicated above. 2-informant – Sri Bajrang Lal, who was also the complainant in the complaint case. After the registration of the FIR as Chumukedima Police Station Case no. 16/2020 [corresponding to G.R. Case no. 193/2020], one of the accused persons named in the FIR viz. Sri Ankit Khandelwal was arrested in the manner, indicated above. The said arrested accused person, Sri Ankit Khandelwal was produced before the learned trial court on 04.03.2020. When an application for bail was preferred on behalf of the said arrested accused person Sri Ankit Khaldelwal on that date i.e. on 04.03.2020, the learned trial court had allowed the said prayer for bail for the reasons recorded in its order dated 04.03.2020, which would be adverted briefly to in the subsequent part of the order. 9. The records of the complaint case, Complaint Case no. C.R. 03/2020 [C.R. 35/2019] and the Order dated 04.03.2020 passed by the learned trial court in the said complaint case go to indicate that on the said date i.e. on 04.03.2020, the complainant, Sri Bajrang Lal [the respondent no. 2-informant herein] had filed an application under Section 257, CrPC seeking for withdrawal of the complaint case against the two accused persons named in the complaint i.e. [1] Sri Ankit Khadelwal; and [2] Sri Vaibhav Jain [the petitioner no. 1 herein]. The Order dated 04.03.2020 further goes to show that the learned trial court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the contents of the application filed under Section 257, CrPC, had allowed the application permitting withdrawal of the complaint case finding the offences against the two accused persons being compoundable in nature. As a consequence of withdrawal of the complaint case, Complaint Case no. C.R. 03/2020 [C.R. 35/2019], the learned trial court had further recorded in its order dated 04.03.2020 that the two accused persons had stood acquitted of the offences alleged in the complaint. 10. It is in the aforesaid backdrop of events, the instant criminal petition with the aforementioned prayers, has been instituted. 11. I have heard Mr. Moa Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. Zhimomi, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 1, State of Nagaland. 12. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent no. 2-informant on call. It is apposite to state that when the service of notice upon the respondent no. 11. I have heard Mr. Moa Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. Zhimomi, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 1, State of Nagaland. 12. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent no. 2-informant on call. It is apposite to state that when the service of notice upon the respondent no. 2-informant could not be effected in the regular mode, the petitioners were allowed, by Order dated 29.03.2022, to take steps for service of notice upon the respondent no. 2-informant in the substituted manner. The steps for service of notice were accordingly taken on behalf of the petitioners in the substituted manner and the Court, by Order dated 28.04.2022, had observed the service of notice upon the respondent no. 2-informant as complete, after having gone through the compliance affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners regarding the steps taken for service of notice in the substituted manner and upon perusing the copy of the newspaper where such notice was published. There was also no representation on behalf of the respondent no. 2-informant on the subsequent dates - 17.05.2022, 14.06.2022, 04.07.2022 and 27.07.2022 - when the instant criminal petition was listed. It is in such situation, the criminal petition has been taken up for final consideration. 13. The Court would like to first advert briefly to the statements and allegations made in the complaint case, Complaint Case no. C.R. 03/2020 [C.R. 35/2019]. The complainant therein i.e. the respondent no. 2-informant herein had stated that the two accused persons viz. [1] Sri Ankit Khandelwal [accused no. 1] and [2] Sri Vaibhav Jain [accused no. 2] – the petitioner no. 1 herein, had taken money from the proprietorship firm, M/s Sitaram Mittal on several occasions as per their needs and had expressly acknowledged their liability to that effect by signing an Undertaking dated 18.01.2019. As per the said Undertaking, two accused persons accepting their liability, had handed over two cheques – cheque bearing no. 641077 dated 02.05.2019 for an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and cheque bearing no. 641080 dated 03.05.2019 for an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- - drawn on Account no. 0023001000000722 maintained at the bank named Malviya Urban Co-operative Bank at its Tonk Road Branch. It was stated in the said Undertaking that the cheques were issued from the company, M/s Macro Infra Contractors Private Limited, through its authorized bank signatory, Sri Bhupendra Singh, Director. 641080 dated 03.05.2019 for an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- - drawn on Account no. 0023001000000722 maintained at the bank named Malviya Urban Co-operative Bank at its Tonk Road Branch. It was stated in the said Undertaking that the cheques were issued from the company, M/s Macro Infra Contractors Private Limited, through its authorized bank signatory, Sri Bhupendra Singh, Director. The copies of the two cheques, available in the records, go to substantiate the above facts. 14. Section 257, CrPC has provided for withdrawal of complaint. It states that if a complainant, at any time before a final order is passed in any case under Chapter XX [Trial of Summons–Cases by Magistrates], satisfies the Magistrate that there are sufficient grounds for permitting him to withdraw his complaint against the accused, or if there be more than one accused, against all or any of them, the Magistrate may permit him to withdraw the same, and shall thereupon acquit the accused against whom the complaint is so withdrawn. 15. As have been noted above, the complainant in the complaint case, Complaint Case no. C.R. 03/2020 [C.R. 35/2019], who is also the informant in Chumukedima Police Station Case no. 16/2020 [corresponding to G.R. Case no. 193/2020], had preferred an application under Section 257, CrPC seeking withdrawal of the complaint on 04.03.2020 before the learned trial court. The learned trial court acting on the said application under Section 257, CrPC, had allowed the prayer made by the complainant to withdraw the complaint and as a result of such withdrawal, the two accused persons named therein – [1] Sri Ankit Khandelwal and [2] Sri Vaibhav Jain [the petitioner no. 1 herein] – stood acquitted of the allegations made in the complaint, that is, of the offences under Section 138 r/w Section 142 of the N.I. Act. 16. The allegations made in the FIR lodged on 12.02.2022, which was anterior to withdrawal of the complaint case on 04.03.2020, have referred about the institution of the complaint case, Complaint Case no. C.R. 03/2020 [C.R. 35/2019] pursuant to dishonour of the two cheques – cheque bearing no. 641077 dated 02.05.2019 for an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and cheque bearing no. 641080 dated 03.05.2019 for an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- – drawn on Account no. 0023001000000722. 17. The contention advanced by Mr. C.R. 03/2020 [C.R. 35/2019] pursuant to dishonour of the two cheques – cheque bearing no. 641077 dated 02.05.2019 for an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and cheque bearing no. 641080 dated 03.05.2019 for an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- – drawn on Account no. 0023001000000722. 17. The contention advanced by Mr. Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioners is to the effect that after the order of acquittal dated 04.03.2020 passed in the complaint case, Complaint Case no. C.R. 03/2020 [C.R. 35/2019], the FIR lodged in connection with Chumukedima Police Station Case no. 16/2020 [corresponding G.R. Case no. 193/2020], with the same set of allegations, is a clear abuse of the process of law and the criminal proceeding, arising out of the FIR, are entitled to be quashed. It is his submission that the petitioners could not have been tried for the same offence twice at the instance of the respondent no. 2 herein, who is the complainant in the complaint case, Complaint Case no. C.R. 03/2020 [C.R. 35/2019] and also the informant in Chumukedima Police Station Case no. 16/2020 [G.R. Case no. 193/2020]. 17.1. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the decisions in [i] T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala and others, reported in [2001] 6 SCC 181 paras : 18, 20, 27; [ii] Gian Singh vs. State of Pubjab, reported in [2012] 10 SCC 303; [iii] Narindra Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in [2014] 6 SCC 466 ; and [iv] Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India and others, reported in [2020] 14 SCC 12 paras : 30, 31, 33, 36. 18. The learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent State has submitted that the offence involved in the complaint case, Complaint Case no. C.R. 03/2020 [C.R. 35/2019] were offences defined under Section 138 r/w Section 142 of the N.I. Act whereas the offences for which the FIR in connection with Chumukedima Police Station Case no. 16/2020 [G.R. Case no. 193/2020] has been registered are offences defined under Sections 120B/406/409/420/467/477A, IPC and Section 138 r/w Section 142 of the N.I. Act. It is his further submission that the petitioner no. 2 was not arraigned as an accused in the complaint case, Complaint Case no. C.R. 03/2020 [C.R. 35/2019] though he is the signatory of the two cheques in question. 193/2020] has been registered are offences defined under Sections 120B/406/409/420/467/477A, IPC and Section 138 r/w Section 142 of the N.I. Act. It is his further submission that the petitioner no. 2 was not arraigned as an accused in the complaint case, Complaint Case no. C.R. 03/2020 [C.R. 35/2019] though he is the signatory of the two cheques in question. Further, there is no statement of the informant or no supporting document to substantiate that the respondent no. 2-informant in Chumukedima Police Station Case no. 16/2020 [corresponding G.R. Case no. 193/2020] had arrived at a settlement with the petitioner no. 2, unlike in the case of the petitioner no. 1, to exonerate him of the allegations made in the FIR. 19. The petitioner no. 1 who was arraigned as the accused no. 2 in the complaint case, Complaint Case no. C.R. 03/2020 [C.R. 35/2019] already stood acquitted of the offences under Section 138 r/w Section 142 of the N.I. Act by the Order dated 04.03.2020 of the learned trial court, which complaint was instituted in connection with dishonour of two cheques, that is, cheque bearing no. 641077 dated 02.05.2019 for an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and cheque bearing no. 641080 dated 03.05.2019 for an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The said position of acquittal has attained finality. The acquittal has resulted on the basis of an application filed by the complainant under Section 257, CrPC. The basis of the FIR instituted on 12.02.2020 are the same to cheques, that is, the cheque bearing no. 641077 dated 02.05.2019 and the cheque bearing no. 641080 dated 03.05.2019. 20. Section 300 of the Code has stated that a person once convicted or acquitted is not to be tried for the same offence. For ready reference, sub-section [1] of Section 300, CrPC are quoted hereinbelow : “300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence.- [1] A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been convicted under sub-section [2] thereof.” 21. The principle that is incorporated into Section 300[1] of the Code is that no man should be visited with more than one trial for offences arising out of identical acts committed by him. When an offence has already been the subject of a trial, whether it ended in acquittal or conviction, it would be negation of the process of criminal justice if on the same set of facts, another trial is allowed to be continued. Sub-section [1] of Section 300, CrPC bars a fresh trial if a person had been tried and convicted or acquitted by a court of competent jurisdiction for the same offence or on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him. In this connection, it is apt to refer to the following observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of D.S.P., CBI, SIT, Chennai vs. S. Nalini and others, reported in [1999] 5 SCC 253 : “238. Section 300 has further widened the protective wings by debarring a second trial against the same accused on the same even for a different offence if a different charge against him for such offence could have been made under Section 221[1] of the Code, or he could have been convicted for such other offence under Section 221[2] of the Code. In this context it is useful to extract Section 221 of the Criminal Procedure Code : “221. Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed.- [1] If a single act or series of acts is of a nature that it is doubtful which of several offences the facts which can be proved will constitute, the accused may be charged with having committed all or any of such offences, and any number of such charges may be tried at once; or he may be charged in the alternative with having committed some one of the said offences. [2] If in such a case the accused is charged with one offence, and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged under the provisions of sub-section [1], he may be convicted of the offence which he is shown to have committed, although he was not charged with it.” 239. [2] If in such a case the accused is charged with one offence, and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged under the provisions of sub-section [1], he may be convicted of the offence which he is shown to have committed, although he was not charged with it.” 239. As the contours of the prohibition are so widely enlarged it cannot be contended that the second trial can escape therefrom on the mere premise that some more allegations were not made in the first trial…..” 22. Apart from the allegations made in the complaint, an additional allegation has made against the accused person, Sri Ankit Khandelwal in the FIR to the effect that after signing the undertaking to repay the borrowed amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- in total by the two cheques, referred above, on 18.01.2021, he had immediately thereafter on 29.01.2019, resigned from the Directorship of the Company, M/s Macro Infra Contractor Private Limited which act, according to the respondent no. 2-informant, is an act of mala fide and deliberate suppression of material facts in order to defraud and cheat the respondent no. 2-informant. Upon perusal of the complaint petition in the complaint case and the FIR under reference, it is noticed that there are no differences with regard to the allegations made therein in respect of the petitioner no. 1 herein. 23. The power under Section 482 of the Code envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction can be exercised viz. [i] to give effect to an order under the Code; [ii] to prevent abuse of the process of court; and [iii] to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Inherent jurisdiction under the Section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with necessary caution. In exercise of the power the Court would be justified to quash any proceeding only if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. In a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code, the Court does not adjudicate the correctness of the allegations in an FIR and/or the charge sheet. 24. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. In a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code, the Court does not adjudicate the correctness of the allegations in an FIR and/or the charge sheet. 24. In order to attract the bar under Section 300[1] of the Code, one of the essential conditions is that the first trial should be before a Court competent to take cognizance and try the accused and thereafter, to record a verdict of conviction or acquittal. Section 300[1], CrPC has not brought any distinction between an acquittal on merits after a fullfledged trial or an acquittal upon withdrawal of complaint under Section 257, CrPC. There is no doubt that the learned trial court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur before whom the complaint case, Complaint Case no. C.R. 03/2020 [C.R. 35/2019] was being tried, had the jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 138 r/w Section 142 of the N.I. Act. Since the learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur was a court of competent jurisdiction as per Section 300[1], CrPC, the bar under Section 300[1] is clearly found applicable in so far as the accused person named Sri Vaibhav Jain [the petitioner no. 1 herein] is concerned. The arrested FIR–named accused person in Chumukedima Police Station Case no. 16/2020 viz. Sri Ankit Khandelwal after arrest, was produced before the learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur on 04.03.2020. It is pertinent to state that on 04.03.2020 itself, the Complaint Case no. C.R. 03/2020 [C.R. 35/2019] stood withdrawn at the instance of the complainant who is the informant of the FIR lodged in connection with Chumukedima Police Station Case no. 16/2020. 25. In the light of the discussion made above, this Court is of the unhesitant view that the criminal proceedings in relation to Chumukedima Police Station Case no. 16/2020, arising out of the FIR lodged by the respondent no. 2-informant on 12.02.2020, clearly attracts the bar under Section 300[1] of the Code in so far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned who already stood acquitted in the complaint case, Complaint Case no. C.R. 03/2020 [C.R. 35/2019] by an order dated 04.03.2020 for the same offence as well as on the same set of facts. 26. 2-informant on 12.02.2020, clearly attracts the bar under Section 300[1] of the Code in so far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned who already stood acquitted in the complaint case, Complaint Case no. C.R. 03/2020 [C.R. 35/2019] by an order dated 04.03.2020 for the same offence as well as on the same set of facts. 26. The decision in T.T. Antony [supra] is on the point that after registration of an FIR and commencing of investigation, registration of a second FIR or successive FIRs in respect of the same incident and crime and making of fresh investigations pursuant thereto would be irregular and in such situation, the same can be interfered with in exercise of the powers under Article 226/Article 227 or Section 482, CrPC. The decision in Arnab Ranjan Goswami [surpa] has reiterated the same principle laid down in T.T. Antony [supra] 26.1. In Gian Singh [supra] and Narindra Singh [supra], the scope of inherent powers of the High Court available under Section 482, CrPC to quash criminal proceedings for offences which are otherwise non-compoundable in nature but in respect of which the contesting parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, have been discussed elaborately. 26.2. In Gian Singh [supra] the Supreme Court has observed and held as under : - “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 26.3. After considering the decision in Gian Singh [supra], the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh [supra] has observed in the similar manner and the relevant parts of the said judgment are extracted hereunder :- “29. After considering the decision in Gian Singh [supra], the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh [supra] has observed in the similar manner and the relevant parts of the said judgment are extracted hereunder :- “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 482of 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/delicate 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.” 27. The above decisions have been pressed into the service by the learned counsel for the petitioner to submit that the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner no. 2 are also entitled to be set aside and quashed. One noticeable fact that is deducible from the FIR, the undertaking dated 18.01.2019 and the two cheques which stood dishonoured, is that Sri Bhupendra Singh Rathore, the petitioner no. 2 are also entitled to be set aside and quashed. One noticeable fact that is deducible from the FIR, the undertaking dated 18.01.2019 and the two cheques which stood dishonoured, is that Sri Bhupendra Singh Rathore, the petitioner no. 2 herein, who is the authorized signatory of the two cheques in the capacity of the Director, M/s Macro Infra Contractor Private Limited was not arraigned as an accused in the complaint case, Complaint Case no. C.R. 03/2020 [C.R. 35/2019]. Thus, the fact situation obtaining in case of the petitioner no. 2 herein is not similar to that of the petitioner no. 1, who stood acquitted in the complaint case, Complaint Case no. C.R. 03/2020 [C.R. 35/2019]. When the bail petition on behalf of the arrested accused, Sri Ankit Khandelwal was moved before the learned trial court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur in connection with Chumukedima Police Station Case no. 16/2020 on 04.03.2020, the respondent no. 2-informant had submitted before the said court that he had arrived at a settlement with the said arrested accused person, Sri Ankit Khandelwal and placed on record a declaration dated 04.03.2020, sworn before the Notary Public. In the declaration dated 04.03.2020, which is available in the case record of G.R. Case no. 193/2020, the respondent no. 2-informant had admitted that he filed the FIR against Sri Ankit Khandelwal on 12.02.2020 at Chumukedima Police Station and subsequently, he had arrived at an understanding with Sri Ankit Khandelwal whereby they had mutually reached at a compromise. The declaration has further mentioned that in view of the compromise, the respondent no. 2-informant had no further complaints against Sri Ankit Khandelwal and he agreed to withdraw all formal complaints he had instituted against Sri Ankit Khandelwal. But, there is no such like declaration made by the respondent no. 2-informant against the petitioner no. 2 herein. In such backdrop, the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners, mentioned above, are not found of assistance and to the benefit of the petitioner no. 2 herein. 28. Since the petitioner no. 2 was neither acquitted in the trial of the complaint case, Complaint Case no. C.R. 03/2020 [C.R. 35/2019] nor there was any settlement between him and the respondent no. 2-informant with regard to the dispute raised in the FIR lodged in connection with Chumukedima Police Station Case no. 2 herein. 28. Since the petitioner no. 2 was neither acquitted in the trial of the complaint case, Complaint Case no. C.R. 03/2020 [C.R. 35/2019] nor there was any settlement between him and the respondent no. 2-informant with regard to the dispute raised in the FIR lodged in connection with Chumukedima Police Station Case no. 16/2020, this Court has not found any good and sufficient reason to extend the relief which has been extended to the petitioner no. 1 herein, to the petitioner no. 2. The petitioner no. 2 is the sole signatory of the two cheques - cheque bearing no. 641077 dated 02.05.2019 for an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and cheque bearing no. 641080 dated 03.05.2019 for an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- - drawn on Account no. 0023001000000722 which are the root cause of both the complaint case as well as the FIR. 29. In the light of the discussions made above and for the reasons assigned therein, the criminal petition stands allowed in respect of the prayer made by the petitioner no. 1 is concerned while declining the same relief to the petitioner no. 2 herein. Resultantly, the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR in connection with the Chumukedima Police Station Case no. 16/2020 in so far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned are set aside and quashed. 30. Thus, the criminal petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. 31. The LCR be sent back forthwith.