ORDER : The petitioner herein is the complainant in Annexure I complaint on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Vaikom wherein the offence alleged is one punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The dishonored cheque dated 29.01.2003 is for Rs.35,000/-. As the accused did not appear before the trial court, the case was included in the Long Pending case as L.P. No. 112/2004. 2. It is further stated that, thereafter the entire disputes between the complainant and the accused in relation to the dishonoured cheque involved in this case was resolved to the best satisfaction of both sides and that the complainant had received the full cheque amount of Rs.35,000/- from the accused in full and final settlement of all liabilities in relation to the dishonored cheque involved in this case. On this basis, the petitioner (complainant) herein had filed Anx-II application on 09.11.2017 seeking permission of the trial court to withdraw the complaint in terms of Sec.257 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the said plea made by the petitioner/complainant has been now rejected by the trial court as per impugned Anx-III order dated 09.11.2017. 3. Heard Sri. T. Manasy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/complainant and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader for respondent State. 4. The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is as follows: “....................... to quash Annexure III order dated 09.11.2017 in LP 112/2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I Vaikom and be further pleased to allow Annexure II petition, seeking permission to withdraw Annexure I complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Vaikom.” 5. The impugned order dated 09.11.2017 passed by the trial court rejecting the plea of the complainant for withdrawal of the complainant reads as follows: “Heard and perused the records. Case is now under LP and NBW is being repeated. From the petition, it is understood that the accused is available in the station and yet he is not turning up for taking bail and he is not showing any response to the process of the court. The case is of the year 2003 and accused have wasted several judicial hours and when the warrant is afraid to be executed, he striked a deal with the complaint. Therefore complaint cannot be permitted to withdraw at this stage and this petition is therefore dismissed.” 6. The case is of the year 2003 and accused have wasted several judicial hours and when the warrant is afraid to be executed, he striked a deal with the complaint. Therefore complaint cannot be permitted to withdraw at this stage and this petition is therefore dismissed.” 6. The Apex Court in a recent decision in M/s. Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Kanchan Mehta reported in [ILR 2017 (4) Kerala 181 : 2017 (5) KHC 177] has issued various directions in relation to complaints for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and para 18 of the said decision reads as follows: “18. From the above discussion following aspects emerge: i. Offence under Section 138 of the Act is primarily a civil wrong. Burden of proof is on accused in view presumption under Section 139 but the standard of such proof is “preponderance of probabilities”. The same has to be normally tried summarily as per provisions of summary trial under the Cr.P.C. but with such variation as may be appropriate to proceedings under Chapter XVII of the Act. Thus read, principle of Section 258 Cr.P.C. will apply and the Court can close the proceedings and discharge the accused on satisfaction that the cheque amount with assessed costs and interest is paid and if there is no reason to proceed with the punitive aspect. ii. The object of the provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate compensation as may be found acceptable to the parties or the Court. iii. Though compounding requires consent of both parties, even in absence of such consent, the Court, in the interests of justice, on being satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated, can in its discretion close the proceedings and discharge the accused. iv. Procedure for trial of cases under Chapter XVII of the Act has normally to be summary. iii. Though compounding requires consent of both parties, even in absence of such consent, the Court, in the interests of justice, on being satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated, can in its discretion close the proceedings and discharge the accused. iv. Procedure for trial of cases under Chapter XVII of the Act has normally to be summary. The discretion of the Magistrate under second proviso to Section 143, to hold that it was undesirable to try the case summarily as sentence of more than one year may have to be passed, is to be exercised after considering the further fact that apart from the sentence of imprisonment, the Court has jurisdiction under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. to award suitable compensation with default sentence under Section 64 IPC and with further powers of recovery under Section 431 Cr.P.C. With this approach, prison sentence of more than one year may not be required in all cases. v. Since evidence of the complaint can be given on affidavit, subject to the Court summoning the person giving affidavit and examining him and the bank's slip being prima facie evidence of the dishonor of cheque, it is unnecessary for the Magistrate to record any further preliminary evidence. Such affidavit evidence can be read as evidence at all stages of trial or other proceedings. The manner of examination of the person giving affidavit can be as per Section 264 Cr.P.C. The scheme is to follow summary procedure except where exercise of power under second proviso to Section 143 becomes necessary, where sentence of one year may have to be awarded and compensation under Section 357(3) is considered inadequate, having regard to the amount of the cheque, the financial capacity and the conduct of the accused or any other circumstances.” The Apex Court has also held that in case the accused pays the cheque amount and along with reasonable interest and cost etc., to the satisfaction of the complainant then the trial court will even have the discretion to exercise the powers under Sec.258 of the Cr.P.C. for stoppage of the further proceedings in relation to trial for offence under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act. The various judgments of the Apex Court including the one in M/s. Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. and Another's case (Supra) has taken judicial note of the fact that the mounting arrears of complaints for offence under Sec.138 of N.I. Act is one of the major source for clogging and creation of arrears in the Indian Judicial System and that efforts should be taken by all the courts to ensure that such complaints should be disposed of without much delay. 7. It is also relevant to note the mandate made by the Parliament in Section 143(3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act that, as far as possible every trial for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act should be conducted as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing the complaint. 8. One of the measures that should be taken resort to by all criminal courts concerned with such cases is to ensure the availing of the alternate dispute resolution mechanism so that the complainant and the accused in such cases can resolve the disputes through such process. When the complainant and the accused in this case, have taken earnest measures to settle their entire disputes and the complainant himself states that he wants to withdraw the complaint, it is not known as to what are the relevant reasons for the trial court to refuse such a plea made by none other than the complainant himself. The grounds of rejection shown in the impugned order are not based on relevant considerations. It is true that the case was included in the Long Pending case list and the matter has been pending since the year 2003. Instead of appreciating the present efforts taken by the complainant/accused to settle his dispute with the accused, the trial court has frowned upon such a positive attitude by the complainant, in having struck a compromise with the complainant. The said approach made by the trial court is absolutely illegal and improper, to say the least. Instead of appreciating the present efforts taken by the complainant/accused to settle his dispute with the accused, the trial court has frowned upon such a positive attitude by the complainant, in having struck a compromise with the complainant. The said approach made by the trial court is absolutely illegal and improper, to say the least. It has been now well settled by decisions of the Apex Court as in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. reported in [ AIR 2010 SC 1907 ], Kaushalya Devi Massand v. Roopkishore reported in [ AIR 2011 SC 2566 ] etc, that the offence of dishonor of cheque as conceived in Sec.138 of N.I. Act is essentially a civil wrong which has been given criminal overtones by the amendments made to the provisions contained in the N.I. Act and that the gravity of such a complaint for offence under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act cannot be equated with the offence under the Indian Penal Code and that the compensatory aspects of the remedy which should be given more priority over the punitive aspects. 9. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the stand taken by the trial court in refusing to give permission to the complainant to withdraw his own complaint is illegal and improper. In this view of the matter, the impugned Anx.-III order dated 09.11.2017 passed by the trial court refusing to grant permission to the complainant to withdraw his complaint will stand set aside and quashed. Resultantly it is ordered that the complaint of the petitioner in LP No.112/2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Vaikom, will stand dismissed as withdrawn by virtue of the enabling powers conferred under Sec.257 of the Cr.P.C. Consequently, it is also ordered that the non bailable warrant issued against the accused in relation to this case will also stand recalled and rescinded. The petitioner will produce a certificate copy of this order before the trial court for necessary information. 10. With these observations and directions, this Crl.M.C. will stand disposed of.