JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This Cr.M.P. has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Katras P.S. Case No.32 of 2021 dated 04.02.2021 registered for the offences punishable under Section 323, 341, 307, 354, 448, 504, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 3. Drawing attention of this Court to the copy of the certified copy of the petition for compromise jointly filed by the petitioner, informant and the victim, in the court of Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, it is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 that upon the intervention of common friends and well-wishers, the parties have settled their dispute amicably. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 are residents of the same locality and because of some misunderstanding, this case was instituted. It is then submitted that in view of the compromise between the parties, the informant does not want to proceed with the case and the petitioner is a student of Bachelor of Arts. It is then submitted that the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out even if the allegation against the petitioner as made out in the F.I.R. is accepted in its entirety to be true. It is next submitted that there is no direct or serious allegation bestowed upon the petitioner and during the investigation of the case, no material has been collected by the I.O. to show the complicity of the petitioner in this case and charge sheet has not yet been submitted. It is further submitted that there is no material in the record to suggest that the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. It is next submitted that there is no allegation of any weapon being used in the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that there is no material in the record to suggest that the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. It is next submitted that there is no allegation of any weapon being used in the alleged occurrence. It is next submitted that unless the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Katras P.S. Case No.32 of 2021 dated 04.02.2021 registered for the offences punishable under Section 323, 341, 307, 354, 448, 504, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. 4. The learned Spl. P.P. submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Katras P.S. Case No.32 of 2021 dated 04.02.2021 registered for the offences punishable under Section 323, 341, 307, 354, 448, 504, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed and set aside. 5. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is crystal clear that the case is at the nascent stage of investigation only and charge sheet has not yet been submitted. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab & Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 paragraphs-29 of which read 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.” (Emphasis supplied) Wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India summed up and laid down the principle 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. Law is well settled to the effect that merely a mention of Section 307 IPC in the F.I.R. do not take away the jurisdiction of the High Court to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. If incorporation of 307 I.P.C. is for the sake of it and the prosecution has not collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC, then even after mentioning of section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, in the FIR, still the High Court can exercise the jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. 6. Now coming to the facts of the case, as there is allegation of assault with sticks, there is no overt injury having been sustained by any of the victims, hence under such circumstances, it can very well be said that this is a case where Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted and the alleged offences committed have been incorporated for the sake of it. Perusal of the record further reveals that compromise has been effected to between the parties and the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-17 of the petition and in view of the full settlement between the parties, the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of court and for the ends of justice, this is a fit case, where the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Katras P.S. Case No.32 of 2021 dated 04.02.2021 registered for the offences punishable under Section 323, 341, 307, 354, 448, 504, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed. 7. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Katras P.S. Case No.32 of 2021 dated 04.02.2021 registered for the offences punishable under Section 323, 341, 307, 354, 448, 504, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad is quashed and set aside. 8. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed.