ORDER 1. Heard. All the petitions raise common question of facts and law, therefore, they are being decided by this common or- der. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are be- ing derived from M.Cr.C.No.9113/2016. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the proceedings on the ground of one time settlement, pending against them in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Bhopal in R.T.No.2487-A/2004 (M.P.State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/s Som Power Private Ltd & others) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1881' for the sake of brevity). 2. Shorn of unnecessary facts, the brief facts of the case is that M/s Som Power Pvt. Ltd is a public limited company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 ( 'M/S SPPL' for the sake of brevity). (ii) Madhya Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation (for short MPSIDC) had sanctioned and disbursed the amount of Rs.2 crores by way of financial assistance in the form of Inter Corporate Deposit to 'M/s SPPL'. (iii) Towards repayment of the aforesaid financial assistance/legal debt, M/s SPPL had issued 8 cheques in favour of MPSIDC. (iv) Total amount of 8 cheques were issued for Rs.2,87,23,562/-. These cheques presented for encashment, but dishonored and MPSIDC has filed 6 complaint cases under Section 138 of 'Act, 1881' in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Bhopal. (v) The details of R.T.No., M.Cr.C.Case No., Cheque nos, Cheque dates, Cheque amount are as follows:- Sr. No RT No. pending before ACJM, Bhopal M.Cr.C.No. filed in 2021 Cheque No. Date of Cheque Cheque amount In favour of 1 917/2004 10886/2016 504335 10.12. 2021 1700000 MPSIDC 2 2487/2004 9113/2016 504336 10.12. 2021 1700000 MPSIDC 3. 1046/2005 9063/2016 407927 - 850000 MPSIDC 407941 - 850000 MPSIDC 4. 549/2007 10212/2016 504348 10.12. 2021 223562 MPSIDC 504238 10.12. 2021 20000000 5. 550/2007 10221/2016 504339 10.12. 2021 1700000 MPSIDC 6. 583/2009 10878/2016 504337 10.12. 2021 1700000 MPSIDC TWO CRORES EIGHTY SEVEN LAKHS TWENTY THREE THOUSAND FIVE SIXTY TWO ONLY 2,87,23, 562 (vi) The aforesaid cases filed under Section 138 of 'Act 1881' are still pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal. 3. It is urged by counsel for the petitioners that this petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioners. 3. It is urged by counsel for the petitioners that this petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioners. He submits that except six complaint cases, no recovery proceedings are initiated or pending till date against 'M/s SPPL'. However, right to initiate proceedings for recovery of the amount under the provision of State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 is available to the respondent and if they so require they can initiate such proceeding in accordance with law. He urged that total amount under 8 cheques which are subject matter of 6 complaint cases filed under Section 138 of 'Act, 1881' is Rs.2,87,23562/- as against principal amount of Rs.2,00,000,00/-(two crore) and petitioners are ready to pay the cheque amount and with an adequate amount of fine the pending proceeding can be set aside. 4. Counsel for respondent has opposed the said request made by counsel for the petitioners stating that petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is not maintainable for the reason that the petitioners should have made this request before the Court, where proceedings under Section 138 of Act, 1881 is pending. This Court cannot take away the right to dispose of the case by the trial court and petition can be entertained only when such a request if any is made before the Court below is rejected, but without making any such request and moving an appropriate application before the trial court such a request cannot be made before this Court by filing petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. He submits that it is a complete prerogative and domain of the court below to decide as to whether proposal made by the petitioners has to be accepted or not. 5. It is evident from the submissions advanced by counsel for the respondent that respondent is not ready to accept the proposal made by the petitioners for getting the case resolved by making payment of an amount which is involved in the cheque. 6. However, at the last limb of argument, counsel for respondent submits that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that petition is to be allowed accepting the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, suitable amount of compensation be given to the respondent- complainant. 7. 6. However, at the last limb of argument, counsel for respondent submits that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that petition is to be allowed accepting the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, suitable amount of compensation be given to the respondent- complainant. 7. On behalf of the petitioners strong reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Meters and Instruments Private Limited and another Vs. Kanchan Mehta), reported in 2018(1) SCC 460, in which the Supreme Court has observed that in a matter of complaint filed under Section 138 of Act, 1881 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. The Supreme Court has further observed that 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. He submits that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, this Court can close the proceedings and discharge the accused on satisfaction that the cheque amount with assessed costs and interests is paid and if there is no reason to proceed with the punitive aspect. He urged that the submissions made by counsel for the respondent asking this Court to remand the case before the trial court where the petitioner should make a request for disposal of the case is not only unjustified, but also unreasonable. 8. Perusal of record reveals that subjected cheques of Rs.2,87,23562/-were issued by the petitioners against the loan amount of Rs.2 crores. 9. Unquestionably, the proceedings initiated under the provisions of Act, 1881' is not the proceeding of recovery of amount of loan, but the proceeding is for getting an amount involved in the cheque, for which complaint under Section 138 of Act, 1881 has been filed. The object of introducing Section 138 of 'Act, 1881' was to enhance the acceptability of cheques in the settlement of liabilities. The drawer of cheque is made liable to prosecution on dishonour of cheque with safeguards to prevent harassment of honest drawers. The object of introducing Section 138 of 'Act, 1881' was to enhance the acceptability of cheques in the settlement of liabilities. The drawer of cheque is made liable to prosecution on dishonour of cheque with safeguards to prevent harassment of honest drawers. It is basically made to facilitate smooth functioning of business transactions. The nature of offence as comes under Section 138 of 'Act 1881' is primarily related to a civil wrong but the same is made compoundable. Though, proceedings under Section 138 of 'Act 1881' could not be treated as civil suits for recovery, the scheme of the provision, providing for punishment with imprisonment or with fine which could extend to twice the amount of the cheque or to both, made the intention of law clear. The complainant could be given not only the cheque amount, but double the amount so as to cover interest and costs. Section 357 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C provides for payment of compensation for the loss caused by the offence out of the fine. Where fine is not imposed, compensation can be awarded under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C to the person who suffered loss. The another object of the provision is not merely penal but to make the accused honour the negotiable instruments. 10. Thus, accused can make an application for compounding the offence. It is for the Court to see as to which stage application is made and what amount of compensation or fine is required to be paid to the complainants. The Supreme Court in the case of Kanchan Mehta (supra) in paragraph 18 has held as under:- 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. 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 compens- atory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enfor- cing 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 accept- able to the parties or the Court. iii) Though compounding requires consent of both parties, even in absence of such consent, the Court, in the in- terests of justice, on being satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated, can in its discretion close the pro- ceedings 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 re- covery 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 affi- davit, subject to the Court summoning the person giving affi- davit 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. 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 ex- ercise of power under second proviso to Section 143 be- comes necessary, where sentence of one year may have to be awarded and compensation under Section 357(3) is con- sidered inadequate, having regard to the amount of the cheque, the financial capacity and the conduct of the accused or any other circumstances. 11. From the above judgment, it can easily be perceived that when the petitioners are ready to pay the entire amount involved in the cheques, then nothing survives in the petition and it would also not be appropriate to keep the cases pending or to remand the same to the trial court only for the sake of making a formal application by the accused- petitioners before the Court below, so as to pass an order for quashing the proceedings. 12. However, I am not inclined to accept the submissions made by counsel for the respondent as in the existing facts and circumstances of the case said submissions does not appear to be reasonable and justified. Considering the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Kanchan Mehta(supra), submissions made by counsel for the respondent is hereby rejected. 13. These petitions are pending before this Court since 2016 and by virtue of order passed by this Court on 22/11/2021, the proceedings of complaint cases were stayed. From the averments made in the petition, it is clear that on earlier occasion also petitioners had made a proposal before the Court for settling the case, but somehow it could not be materialized. 14. Adverting to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I do not find any justification for remitting the matter before the trial court when it can be done here also, especially when the petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C asking this Court to exercise its inherent power. This Court will not work as per whims and choice of the litigants and such a litigation cannot be kept pending for long, merely because parties are some how not reached the settlement. 15. This Court will not work as per whims and choice of the litigants and such a litigation cannot be kept pending for long, merely because parties are some how not reached the settlement. 15. In such a circumstance, when a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has been filed asking this Court to exercise the inherent power and petitioners are ready to pay the amount involved in the cheques, I do not find any reason for not accepting the said offer and quash the proceedings instead of remanding the same to the trial court. Thus, proceedings pending before the trial court under R.T.Nos.2487A/2004, 917/2004, 1046/2001, 549/2004, 550/2004 and 583/2004 are hereby quashed subject to deposit of Rs.15,00,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Lac) towards compensation in addition to cheque amount of Rs.2,87,23562/- before the Court below within a period of one month from today. The petitioners are liable to be discharged on account of satisfaction of legal liabilities/debt payable to MPSIDC under the cheques and accordingly all 6 complaint cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal deserves to be quashed. 16. The petitions filed by the petitioners are hereby allowed with the aforesaid conditions and with cost of Rs.5,00,000/-to be paid to respondent by the petitioners.