ORDER 1. Parties have expressed that they have entered into compromise and filed application I.A.3571/15 under section 320 of CrPC. 2. Parties were directed to present themselves before the Principal Registrar of this Court for verification of the factum of compromise. By note dated 8.7.2015, Principal Registrar has stated that he has verified the compromise. He is satisfied that parties have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement or coercion. 3. Petitioner also submitted that pursuant to the judgment dated 13.7.2011, Rs.5,80,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner/accused with the complainant/Company and now nothing remains to be paid. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. [2010(4) MPLJ 257], was decided in a later stage, whereas the questioned cheque is dated 14.11.2008. Therefore, compounding fee would not be applicable in this case. 5. Considered. 6. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal, reported as 2010(4) MPLJ 257, has directed to deposit 10%, 15% and 20% of the cheque amount at different stages when the case is compounded under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the legal services authority or such authority as the Court deems fit. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that in the present case depositing of compounding fee is not required as the decision of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), is not applicable on the ground that the cheque dated 14.11.2008 of Rs.5,45,688/- was dishonoured on 17.11.2008. Therefore, the date of offence is 14.11.2008; whereas the verdict in Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), has been pronounced on May 3, 2010. 8. In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioner placed copy of order dated 15.5.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.5570/2011 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, whereby it is held that cheque dated 3.11.2009 was dishonoured on 13.11.2009. Therefore, the date of offence is 13.11.2009 and law laid down in the judgment dated 3.5.2010 in Damodar S. Prabhu, is not applicable. 9. In my considered opinion to maintain judicial propriety and discipline, it will not be proper for me to take a different view. However, in the aforesaid backdrop, it is clear that the coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.5570/11 in my humble opinion is not correct. 9. In my considered opinion to maintain judicial propriety and discipline, it will not be proper for me to take a different view. However, in the aforesaid backdrop, it is clear that the coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.5570/11 in my humble opinion is not correct. In the light of the direction of the apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), at paragraph 23 that “these directions should be given effect prospectively”, if any compromise is made after pronouncement of the judgment by the apex Court on 3.5.2010, direction given by Hon’ble apex Court would have to be observed. 10. In the fitness of the things, I deem it proper to refer this matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice as per Chapter 4 rule 8 of M.P. High Court Rules, 2008. 11. Rule 8(3) reads as under : “8. (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) Where a Judge sitting alone while hearing a case is of the opinion that for the decision of that case, an earlier decision of Coordinate or Larger Bench of this Court needs reconsideration, he may formulate question(s) and refer the same to the Chief Justice with a recommendation that it be placed before a larger bench.” Considering the aforesaid, I deem it proper to refer the matter to Hon’ble the Chief Justice for constituting an appropriate Bench to resolve the aforesaid problem. In my opinion, the following questions may be referred for consideration by the appropriate Bench. (i) Whether, the compounding fee as applicable in Negotiable Instruments cases pursuant to the judgment of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), is applicable to cases which are compounded after 3.5.2010 retrospectively irrespective of the date on which the cheque is executed? (ii) Whether cases of compounding of cases under Negotiable Instruments Act, if the cheque dated is prior to pronouncement of judgment in Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), i.e., 3.5.2010, the compounding fee is not leviable? Registry is directed to act in accordance with the M.P. High Court Rules, 2008 and do the needful. ..........