JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. Both these criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 21.10.2020 in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No.60 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. Case No.2929 of 2020 whereby and where under, cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Drawing attention of this Court to the mediation report submitted by the Mediator appointed by Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, it is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the parties have entered into compromise and the informant-opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with the case. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Cr. M.P. No. 497 of 2022 has been filed by the accused-Pravin Kumar @ Praveen Kumar who is the husband of the opposite party no.2 and Cr. M.P. No.304 of 2022 has been filed by the accused-Anjani Kumar Singh @ Anjani Kumar and Usha Sinha @ Usha Devi who are respectively the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the informant-opposite party no.2. 5. It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that since compromise has been effected to between the parties; hence continuance of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of the court. It is then jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 21.10.2020 in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No.60 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. Case No.2929 of 2020 be quashed. 6. It is then jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 21.10.2020 in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No.60 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. Case No.2929 of 2020 be quashed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , summed up and laid down the 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 by observing thus in paragraph-29. which reads as under:- “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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. Perusal of the record reveals that dispute between the parties is basically a matrimonial dispute and charge has not yet been framed nor has the trial begun. After going through the materials in the record as well as the submissions jointly made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, this Court is satisfied that amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties. Therefore, a chance of conviction of the petitioners in the case, in view of the compromise between the parties, is bleak. Hence, continuance of criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of the Court and in the interest of justice, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 21.10.2020 in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No.60 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. Case No.2929 of 2020 be quashed. 8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 21.10.2020 in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No.60 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. Case No.2929 of 2020 is quashed. 9. In this result, both the criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed. 10. The interim order, if any, passed in respective cases stands vacated.