ORDER : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. An interesting question that consequent upon a compromise arrived at between the complainant and the accused-respondent in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" in short, the accused-petitioners should be permitted to compound the offence, without imposing costs in accordance with the graded scheme framed by a larger Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babala, (2010) 5 SCC 663 , or in the alternative the complaint should be quashed while exercising inherent jurisdiction by the High Court, under Section 482 Cr. P.C., has been brought to this Court for adjudication in these petitions. 2. Since the question hereinabove brought to this Court for adjudication is common in these petitions, therefore, I propose to dispose of the same by a common judgment. 3. Since the point involved in these petitions is legal in nature, therefore, there is no need to give every factual detail and suffice would it to say that the parties, who are common in these appeals, had some business transaction between them. The petitioners, hereinafter referred to as "the accused persons", owed some liability towards the respondent, hereinafter referred to as "the complainant". The accused petitioners, in order to discharge such liability, they owed towards the complainant, issued following cheques on different dates: Case No. Cheque No. with date Amount Date of dishonour 127/3 of 09/05 CA/47-818205 dated 13.1.2005 Rs. 50,00,000/- 11.7.2005 128/3 of 09/05 CA/47-818234 dated 17.1.2005 Rs. 2,00,000/- 1.8.2005 4/3 of 09/05 CA/47-828218 dated 31.3.2005 Rs. 2,50,000/- 1.8.2005 70/3 of 11/05 CA/47-818228 dated 31.3.2005 Rs. 25,00,000/- 1.8.2005 69/3 of 11/05 CA/47-818219 dated 31.3.2005 Rs. 2,50,000/- 1.8.2005 Total amount Rs. 82,00,000/- 4. The total amount under the cheques hereinabove comes to Rs. 82 lacs. The complainant presented the cheques for encashment, but the same were dishonuored and returned to its representative. This has led in issuance of separate legal notices in respect of the bouncing of aforesaid cheques. The accused, however, failed to pay the amount to the complainant after issuance of the legal notice. This has led in filing five separate complaints by the complainant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.2, Nalagarh, District Solan. 5. This has led in issuance of separate legal notices in respect of the bouncing of aforesaid cheques. The accused, however, failed to pay the amount to the complainant after issuance of the legal notice. This has led in filing five separate complaints by the complainant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.2, Nalagarh, District Solan. 5. Learned trial Magistrate, after holding the trial, has held the respondents guilty for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and consequently, vide judgment dated 26.9.2012, Annexure A-1 in each case, sentenced each of them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also imposed, upon each of them, the cheque amount, as compensation. Additionally, the complainant was further held entitled to 10% of the cheques amount, as compensation in each case. 6. Aggrieved from their conviction and sentence, the accused persons had preferred criminal appeal No.61-S- 10/2012 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Solan. It is worthwhile to mention that one Civil Suit No.30 of 2008 for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 119.05 lacs and one Civil Writ Petition, bearing registration No.206 of 2006 filed by accused-petitioner Ram Niwas were also pending disposal. In addition to this, one LPA bearing registration No.86/2010 against the order dated 6.4.2010 in CWP No.206/2010, is also pending disposal in this Court. 7. During the pendency of the appeals before the Sessions Judge as well as the Civil Suit and the Writ Petition before this Court, the parties arrived at a compromise and settled their claims and counter claims amicably on 27th April, 2013. Deed of compromise is Annexure A-2 (colly). In the amicable settlement, a sum of Rs. 40 lacs in lump sum was agreed to be paid by the accused-petitioners towards the full and final settlement of the claim of the complainant respondents. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 20 lacs stands paid on 20.2.2013, whereas the remaining amount of Rs. 20 lacs was also paid on 1st April, 2013, the day when the compromise deed was executed. 8. Consequent upon the compromise having arrived at between the parties, Civil Suit No.30/2008 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 29.4.2013, Annexure A-2 (colly). Similarly, CWP No.206/2006 was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 6.5.2013, Annexure A-3 to this petition. 20 lacs was also paid on 1st April, 2013, the day when the compromise deed was executed. 8. Consequent upon the compromise having arrived at between the parties, Civil Suit No.30/2008 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 29.4.2013, Annexure A-2 (colly). Similarly, CWP No.206/2006 was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 6.5.2013, Annexure A-3 to this petition. An application Annexure A-4 has also been filed for withdrawal of LPA No.86 of 2010 in the chain of withdrawal of cases between the parties pursuant to the compromise. Accused-petitioners have approached learned lower Appellate Court also for allowing them to compound the offence on the ground that they now have entered into a compromise with the complainant. They also placed on record the copy of deed of compromise dated 1.4.2013. 9. Learned Sessions Judge, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu's case supra, has allowed the accused persons to compound the offence subject to deposit of cost i.e. 15% of the cheque amount in each and every case with the District Legal Services Authority, Solan. The order of Sessions Judge reads as follows: "In Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babala H., 2010 (2) Apex Court Judgments 110(SC), a three judge bench of Hon'ble Apex Court, has not only held that the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act is compoundable with Court permission, but also stipulated the manner in which this discretion has to be regulated and exercised by the Courts. It comes out from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court that if composition is effected inter se the parties at the appellate stage, then the composition can be allowed by the appellate court only on the deposit of 15% the cheque amount, by the appellant-accused as costs with concerned District Legal Services Authority. Therefore, this Court is inclined to accord permission to appellants-accused to compound the offence with the complainant-respondent, if they deposit 15% of the cheque amount with District Legal Services Authority, Solan, before the next date of hearing. Let this amount be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Solan, before the next date of hearing so that necessary orders granting permission to appellants-accused to compound the offence is accorded in their favour. Be put up on 10.7/2-013 for further orders." 10. Let this amount be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Solan, before the next date of hearing so that necessary orders granting permission to appellants-accused to compound the offence is accorded in their favour. Be put up on 10.7/2-013 for further orders." 10. Learned Senior Advocate canvassed that in the peculiar facts and circumstances where the parties were litigating with each other and the dispute in the Civil Suit as well as Civil Writ Petition was ultimately settled amicably and deed of compromise came to be executed, the present is a fit case warranting compounding of offence without insisting for payment of cost i.e. 15% of the amount under each and every cheque. In the alternative, it is urged that in view of the compromise having been arrived at between the parties, this Court in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C., should quash the complaint and also the entire proceeding having taken place therein. In this behalf, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 : (AIR 2012 SC (Cri) 1796). 11. On the other hand, Ms. Ambika Kotwal, learned counsel representing the respondent-complainant while admitting that the parties have compromised the dispute amicably, has submitted that the respondent-complainant even has received a sum of Rs. 40 lacs in lump sum against the sum of Rs. 82 lacs under the disputed cheques and as such nothing is now due and recoverable from the accused petitioners. 12. First, I would like to take for consideration, the 2nd point urged by learned Senior Counsel. Be it stated that the Apex Court in Gian Singh's case supra, has allowed the compounding of an offence which is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the victim has entered into compromise with the accused. 12. First, I would like to take for consideration, the 2nd point urged by learned Senior Counsel. Be it stated that the Apex Court in Gian Singh's case supra, has allowed the compounding of an offence which is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the victim has entered into compromise with the accused. The compounding of offence in each and every case, however, has not been permitted and rather as per the ratio of this judgment, it has been permitted only in those cases, which bear civil flavour, having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions; or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry etc.; or the family disputes where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled the dispute between them amicably. Serious offences, like murder, rape dacoity etc. or the offences of mental depravity under IPC or the offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by the public servants, should not be allowed to be compounded, even if there is a compromise between the accused and the victim. Their Lordships have held as follows in the judgment, supra: "58. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime- doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed." 13. The present, however, is a case where compounding of offence is permissible. Section 147 of the Act, which provides for compounding of offence committed under the Act, reads as under: "147. Offences to be compoundable. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (2 of 1974.) every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable." 14. Section 147 of the Act, therefore, is in the nature of enabling provision, which provides for the compounding of offences, under the Act, thereby serving as an exception to the general rule incorporated under subsection (9) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment in Gian Singh's case supra, deals with the non-bailable offences, under Indian Penal Code and even under special statute, such as Prevention of Corruption Act etc., where no special provisions exist regarding compounding of offence. However, since in the Negotiable Instruments Act Section 147 was inserted by way of amendment, the same, therefore, provides for the compounding of offences, prescribed under the said Act and overrides the effect of Section 320 (9) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, since in the Negotiable Instruments Act Section 147 was inserted by way of amendment, the same, therefore, provides for the compounding of offences, prescribed under the said Act and overrides the effect of Section 320 (9) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the ratio of the judgment in Gian Singh's case supra has no application in the case in hand for the reason that the offence, the accused-petitioners allegedly committed, is compoundable under Section 147 of the Act and as such, the application of Section 482 Cr. P.C. is also not attracted in the case in hand and the offence rather can be compounded. 15. Now adverting to the question that the compounding of the offence in the given facts and circumstances is permissible without insisting for the deposit of cost in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabu's case supra, no doubt the Apex Court has observed that imposition of cost, suggested under the graded scheme is a matter of discretion, however, in no case this judgment provides for exempting an accused from payment of cost, though the Court may reduce the cost in the given facts and circumstances of a case by recording reasons therefor in writing. The relevant portion of this judgment reads as follows: "21. With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence. It was submitted that the requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition, since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay settling the cases for years. An application for compounding made after several years not only results in the system being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective justice. An application for compounding made after several years not only results in the system being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective justice. In view of this submission, we direct that the following guidelines be followed:- THE GUIDELINES (i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows: (a) That directions can be given that the Writ of Summons 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. (b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the Court deems fit. (c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs. (d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount. 22 to 24 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 25. The graded scheme for imposing costs is a means to encourage compounding at an early stage of litigation. In the status quo, valuable time of the Court is spent on the trial of these cases and the parties are not liable to pay any Court fee since the proceedings are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, even though the impact of the offence is largely confined to the private parties. Even though the imposition of costs by the competent court is a matter of discretion, the scale of costs has been suggested in the interest of uniformity. The competent Court can of course reduce the costs with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in writing for such variance. Bona fide litigants should of course contest the proceedings to their logical end." 16. The competent Court can of course reduce the costs with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in writing for such variance. Bona fide litigants should of course contest the proceedings to their logical end." 16. It is, therefore, seen that the object behind framing the graded scheme for imposition of cost is to encourage the compounding of offence committed under the Act at an early stage. Payment of cost suggested to be paid by the accused under the scheme is, therefore, an essential element of such compounding and no exemption from payment of such cost is permissible. What, however, legally permissible is that the Court, where the prayer for compounding of the offence is made, may reduce the costs, that too having regard to the specific facts and circumstances of a case by recording reasons therefor in writing. 17. Adjudging the first point urged by learned Senior Advocate in the light of this legal back drop and also the peculiar circumstances of the case, where the parties were litigating with each other in different litigation's referred to hereinabove and ultimately resolved all the disputes amicably vide deed of compromise Ext.A-2 (colly) and pursuant to such compromise, the respondent-complainant agreed to accept a sum of Rs. 40,000/- in lump sum towards full and final settlement of its claim under the disputed cheques and also that the efforts to arrive at a compromise were being made in the civil suit filed by the accused-petitioners in the High Court against the respondent-complainant, which bore fruit in February, 2013, when part payment of the agreed amount, i.e. Rs. 20 lacs was made by the accused-petitioner to the respondent complainant and thereafter on 1st April, 2013, when the compromise deed was entered into on payment of the remaining amount of Rs. 20 lacs also, the accused-petitioners could approach the Court concerned for compounding of the offence only after the parties agreed to settle the dispute amicably and ultimately entered into a compromise. These peculiar circumstances justify to reduce the rate of cost in variance of the rates prescribed by the Apex Court under the graded Scheme framed in Damodar S. Prabhu's case supra. 18. The above discussion, therefore, leads to the conclusion that in all these cases the cheques amount has to be taken as agreed upon i.e. Rs. 40 lacs and not Rs. 18. The above discussion, therefore, leads to the conclusion that in all these cases the cheques amount has to be taken as agreed upon i.e. Rs. 40 lacs and not Rs. 82 lacs, as was originally claimed by the respondent-complainant. 19. As regards the cost, when the prayer for compounding of the offence has been made at an appellate stage in the Court of Sessions Judge, compounding under the graded scheme can be allowed subject to payment of 15% of the cheque amount by way of cost. However, in the peculiar circumstances, as discussed hereinabove, I hold that the compounding of offence in these cases on payment of 5% of the cheque amount by way of costs by the accused petitioners, would serve the ends of justice. 20. Therefore, in modification of the order impugned in these petitions, the accused-petitioners are permitted to compound the offence with the respondent-complainant on deposit of 5% of Rs. 4,00,000/- (four lacs), the agreed amount under the disputed cheques, with the District Legal Services Authority, Solan, within four weeks from today. All the petitions stand disposed of accordingly in the aforesaid terms.