JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order taking cognizance dated 09.02.2022 passed in Complaint Case No.3934 of 2020 by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of summons against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner files the copy of the settlement arrived at between the sister of the petitioner and opposite party No.2 before the National Lok Adalat held at Civil Court, Dhanbad in connection with Original Maintenance Case No.547 of 2019 on 10.02.2023 and learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly submit that this case is a offshoot of the case arising out of Saraidhela P.S. Case No.147 of 2019 corresponding to S.T. Case No.745 of 2022 which was instituted by the sister of the petitioner against the opposite party No.2 but the dispute between the parties have been settled completely and the parties have agreed to withdraw the cases filed against each other and their respective family members. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence involved in this case is neither the offence relating to mental depravity nor the same involves any public policy nor the offences are serious in nature. It is then jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 that the dispute between the parties is basically a private dispute and in view of settlement between the parties, the continuation of criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of court. Hence, it is submitted that the order taking cognizance dated 09.02.2022 passed in Complaint Case No.3934 of 2020 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi be quashed. 4. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no serious objection for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 09.02.2022 passed in Complaint Case No.3934 of 2020 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi. 5. 4. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no serious objection for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 09.02.2022 passed in Complaint Case No.3934 of 2020 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi. 5. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available 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 & Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has summed up and laid 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 by observing as under in paragraph-29:- “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.” 6. Now, coming to the facts of the case; the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner criminally intimidated the opposite party No.2-who is the husband of the sister of the petitioner; apparently in view of matrimonial dispute between the sister of the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2. In view of the compromise between the parties as the opposite party No.2 is not interested to prosecute the Case, any further. The offence involved is neither any serious offence nor any offence involving mental depravity. The dispute between the parties is basically a private dispute arising out of matrimonial dispute between the sister of the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2. Charge has not yet been framed in this case. The case is at an early stage. This Court is of the considered view that the chance of conviction of the petitioner is bleak and remote in view of the compromise between the parties and the lack of interest of the opposite party No. 2 to continue with the prosecution of the petitioner. In view of complete settlement and compromise between the sister of the petitioner and the opposite party number 2, continuation of this criminal case will certainly cause hardship to the petitioner. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court the continuation of criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of court and further, the interest of justice will be best served if the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.3934 of 2020 is brought to an end. 7. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance vide order dated 09.02.2022 passed in Complaint Case No.3934 of 2020 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi and the entire criminal proceeding as prayed for by the petitioner, is quashed and set aside. 8. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed. 9. 7. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance vide order dated 09.02.2022 passed in Complaint Case No.3934 of 2020 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi and the entire criminal proceeding as prayed for by the petitioner, is quashed and set aside. 8. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed. 9. Interim order, if any, in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands vacated.