ORDER 1. This application is directed against the order dated 11.8.2011 passed in Complaint Case No.518 of 2011(T.R. No. 942 of 2012) whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act has been taken against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on the allegation that a cheque of Rs. 3.00 lakhs given to the complainant got dishonored, a complaint was filed for commission of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. When the petitioner did appear, an application was filed that the petitioner is ready to compound the offence by offering to pay a sum of Rs. 3.00 lakhs and in addition thereto, an amount of Rs. 40,000/-, was also offered. That application was pressed, thereupon the parties asked some time from the Court and they went out of the court. Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 did accept the proposal in presence of the complaint. But when parties came inside the Court, the complainant backed out from his acceptance of the proposal and that has given cause of action for filing this application. 3. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it has been concerned of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to get the cases registered under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, disposed of at the earliest and in that pursuit compromise be encouraged. It was pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has even laid down certain guidelines in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663 , making imperative on the part of the accused persons to offer for compromise at the very first instance and, therefore, keeping in view that guidelines offer was made, which was initially accepted but later on backed out from it any continuation of any proceedings of the instances of the complainant would amount abuse of the process of the Court. 4. As against this, Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, submits that at the very initial stage when the complainant wanted to have here compromise in the matter, the petitioner never came forward to have a compromise in the matter rather after putting appearance an application was filed after nine months and then, offer was made which was not acceptable and, therefore, the complainant declined to go for compromise. 5. 5. It be stated that Hon'ble Supreme Court having taken notice of the trend that the application for compounding are generally filed after several years of the initiation of the proceedings it was felt that it is not conducive for the system of administration of justice as delay made by the accused in giving offer of compromise burdens the Court with the case and, therefore, following guidelines were laid down, so that the accused may come for the compromise at the initial stage of the case : “Writ of summons in a cheque dishonour case should be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the accused.” 6. But here in the instant case offer was made but it was not accepted. In such situation, court cannot force the other party to go for compromise. At the same time on account of refusal to accept proposal the prosecution continues and as such, such continuation would never amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Thus, I do not find any illegality with the continuation of the proceedings. 7. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. 8. It goes without saying that the trial court would always keep in mind while disposing of the case that the accused had made an offer for settlement for the disputes earlier.