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 Bank More (Bhuli O.P.) Case No.116 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 120 B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly drawing the attention of this Court towards Annexure-2 which is the copy of the certified copy of the joint compromise petition filed by the parties in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad submit that therein it has been categorically mentioned that the parties have compromised the case and settled all their disputes with the intervention of friends and well-wishers and due to misunderstanding, this case was lodged against the petitioners and the petitioners have no involvement in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 further jointly submit that good and cordial relationship has been restored between both the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons, attempted to commit murder of the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 next jointly submit that except suspicion, there is no other imputation against the petitioners but later when the informant came to know that the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged in the First Information Report and without verification their names has been mentioned in the F.I.R and after coming to know all these facts, the informant filed the joint compromise petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly submit that the case is at the nascent stage of investigation only and the petitioners have been implicated in this case without due verification about the allegation against them and since a compromise has been effected to between the parties, hence, the chances of the conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Bank More (Bhuli O.P.) Case No.116 of 2023 which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. 4. Learned Special P.P. appearing for the State submits that State has no serious objection for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Bank More (Bhuli O.P.) Case No.116 of 2023 which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad qua the petitioners only in view of the compromise entered into between the parties. 5. Having heard the 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 vs. State of Punjab & Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has summed up and laid down the principles by which High Court will be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings paragraph-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) 6. Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is no direct allegation against the petitioners of committing any overt act rather admittedly on the date of occurrence, the informant developed friendship with the petitioners and the petitioners have been implicated in this case merely on the basis of suspicion but later on the informant himself came to know that the suspicion was uncalled for and unfounded. In view of the compromise between the parties, the chance of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak and as the informant is not desirous of continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, hence, the continuance of the same will amount to abuse of process of court. 7. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. 8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Bank More (Bhuli O.P.) Case No.116 of 2023 which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. 9. 8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Bank More (Bhuli O.P.) Case No.116 of 2023 which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. 9. It is made clear that the criminal proceedings will continue in respect of the rest of the accused persons. 10. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.