ORDER : K.BABU, J. The accused in C.C.No.83 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyoli, challenges the judgment of conviction passed against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short ‘ the NI Act’) in this Crl.Rev. Petition. The revision petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court. He was also directed to pay Rs.1,15,895/- as compensation to the complainant. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the complainant/respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 147 of the NI Act seeking permission to compound the offence stating that he has no surviving grievance against the accused. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.1, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the composition of the offence can be permitted only on deposit of costs as directed by the Supreme Court in Damodar S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H [ AIR 2010 SC 1907 ]. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that Section 147 of the NI Act permits the complainant to compound the offence unilaterally. The learned counsel submitted that Section 147 of the NI Act is governed by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. 5. This Court appointed Advocate Shri.K.M. Firoz as Amicus Curiae to address the issue. I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae. 6. Compounding is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as follows:- “Compounding a crime:-- The offence of either agreeing not to prosecute a crime that one knows has been committed or agreeing to hamper the prosecution.” 7. In Sri.P. Ramanatha Aiyer’s The Law Lexicon (Reprint 2002 – Second Edition), compounding is defined as follows:- “Compounding felony or offence:-- Compounding an offence is defined to be “the offence of taking a reward for forbearing to prosecute a felony; as where the party robbed takes his goods again, or other amends upon an agreement not to prosecute.” 8. There is a clear difference between compromise and compounding. The two cannot be equated. Compromise arrived at between the parties does not have the effect of automatically compounding the offence. Compounding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘Sanhita’ for short) 9. There is a clear difference between compromise and compounding. The two cannot be equated. Compromise arrived at between the parties does not have the effect of automatically compounding the offence. Compounding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘Sanhita’ for short) 9. The policy of law as contained in Section 320 of the Code and Section 359 of the Sanhita is to promote friendliness between the parties so that peace between them is restored. 10. It is settled that composition as provided under Section 320 of the Code and Section 359 of the Sanhita is a unilateral act. A joint application by the accused and the victim is not a requirement of the Statute. 11. The Code and the Sanhita seek to categorize the offences into two groups. Under sub-section(1), certain offences have been listed which can be compounded without the permission of the Court and under sub-section(2), certain offences are listed which can be compounded only with the permission of the Court. Sub-section (3) shows that when an offence is compoundable under the Code or the Sanhita, the abetment of such offence or an attempt to commit such offence or where the accused is liable under Section 34 (Section 359 of the Sanhita) or Section 149 of the IPC can also be compounded in the same manner. When the person who would otherwise be competent to compound the offence is dead, his legal representatives may, with the consent of the Court, compound such offence. When the person who otherwise is competent to compound an offence is a child or an idiot or a lunatic, any person competent to contract on his behalf may, with the permission of the Court, compound such offence under sub-section(4). Under sub-section(5), when the accused has been committed for trial or when he has been convicted and an appeal is pending, the offence may be compounded with the leave of the Court to which he is committed or as the case may be before which the appeal is to be heard. Sub-section (6) empowers the revisional court to allow the offence to be compounded. The composition of an offence under the Code or the Sanhita shall have the effect of acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been committed. Sub-section (6) empowers the revisional court to allow the offence to be compounded. The composition of an offence under the Code or the Sanhita shall have the effect of acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been committed. The composition of a compoundable offence coming under sub-section(1) is complete as soon as the Court accepts it, and it has the effect of the acquittal of the accused even if the person by whom the offence may be compounded later resiled from the composition. Insofar as the offences involved are compoundable with the permission of the Court, unless and until the Court has granted permission, the composition does not have any consequences. Compounding under the Negotiable Instruments Act 12. By way of Act 55 of 2002, Section 147 has been introduced in the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with the composition of the offence under the Act. Section 147 reads thus:- 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. 13. The statement of objects and reasons attached to Amendment Act 55 of 2002 refers to the deficiencies in dealing with cases arising from the dishonour of cheques. The legislature found that the procedure prescribed for the Courts to deal with matters arising from dishonour of cheques be cumbersome and that the Courts are unable to dispose of such cases expeditiously in a time bound manner in view of the procedure contained in the Act. Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act commences with a non-obstante clause facilitating the Section to control composition under the Act. Section 147 of the NI Act, is in the nature of an enabling provision which provides for compounding of the offences prescribed under the Act, serving as an exception to the general rule incorporated in sub-section (9) of Section 320 of the Code to give an overriding effect to the same. The non-obstante clause cannot be interpreted as rendering the provisions of the Code for composition under Section 320 Cr.P.C as completely inapplicable. Having regard to the object of the legislation, the non- obstante clause shall have a wide meaning. The non-obstante clause cannot be interpreted as rendering the provisions of the Code for composition under Section 320 Cr.P.C as completely inapplicable. Having regard to the object of the legislation, the non- obstante clause shall have a wide meaning. A Division Bench of this Court in Sudheer Kumar @ Sudheer v. Manakkandi M.K. Kunhiraman [ 2008 (1) KHC 127 ] held that the non-obstante clause is added with a view to give an overriding effect over the provisions of the Code. The Division Bench made it clear that the words notwithstanding the provisions of the Cr.P.C only means notwithstanding the prohibition against compounding of offence other than coming under the table annexed to sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 320 of the Code and that the said non-obstante clause will not exclude the application of Cr.P.C to the offences under the NI Act. 14. Section 147 of the NI Act provides no explicit guidance as to what stage compounding can or cannot be done or whether compounding can be done at the instance of the complainant or with the leave of the Court. The Division Bench, agreeing with the findings of the Single Judge in Sabu George v. Home Secretary [ 2007 (1) KLT 982 ], held that the procedure under Section 320 of Cr.P.C should be followed while compounding an offence under the NI Act notwithstanding the non-obstante clause in Section 147. The Division Bench further held that the offence under the NI Act could be compounded in par with the offences mentioned in Table 1 in Section 320 of the Code without permission from the Court. The Court made it clear that if such offences are compounded by the parties, the trial Court is bound to accept the compounding and the Court need not look into whether a genuine compromise was entered into and the compounding petition is filed accordingly. Compounding of the offence under the NI Act at later stages of litigation has also been held permissible as provided in sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 320 of the Code and Section 359 of the Sanhita. 15. In K.M.Ibraham v. K.P. Mohammed and another [ (2010) 1 SCC 798 ], the Supreme Court held that Section 147 of the Act does not bar the parties from compounding an offence under Section 138 even at the appellate stage of the proceedings. 15. In K.M.Ibraham v. K.P. Mohammed and another [ (2010) 1 SCC 798 ], the Supreme Court held that Section 147 of the Act does not bar the parties from compounding an offence under Section 138 even at the appellate stage of the proceedings. Unlike other crimes, the offence under the NI Act is essentially of a private nature. The punishment provided in the Statute is not strictly imposed as a retribution. It is only a means to ensure payment of money. The interest of the complainant in the prosecution is essentially in recovering the money rather than seeing that the drawer is sent to jail. It has the compensatory aspect of the remedy which has precedence over the punitive element. 16. Having said thus, a question arises as to who is competent to compound. Going by the procedure prescribed in the Code and the Sanhita, the victim or complainant alone is competent to compound. The judicial precedents underline that composition is a unilateral act [vide:-Y.P.Baiju Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.[MANU/KE/0731/2007], Mathew v. State of Kerala [ 1986 KLT 128 ] and Johnson Stephen v. Chinchumol [ 2023 (6) KLT 1 ]. As the procedure under Section 320 Cr.P.C is to be followed in case of the composition of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, the complainant is the person competent to compound the offence as provided in Section 147 of the NI Act. Damodar S Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. [ AIR 2010 SC 1907 ] 17. A Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu considered the inadequate procedure in dealing with cheque bouncing cases and issued the following guidelines:- (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. 18. While issuing the above guidelines, the Supreme Court has taken into account the long pending procedures in the cheque bouncing cases and observed that parties are choosing compounding as a method of last resort instead of opting it at the stage of cognizance or immediately thereafter. The Supreme Court observed thus:- “One explanation for such behaviour could be that the accused persons are willing to take the chance of progressing through the various stages of litigation and then choose the route of settlement only when no other route remains. While such behaviour may be viewed as rational from the viewpoint of litigants, the hard facts are that the undue delay in opting for compounding contributes to the arrears pending before the courts at various levels. If the accused is willing to settle or compromise by way of compounding of the offence at a later stage of litigation, it is generally indicative of some merit in the complainant's case. In such cases it would be desirable if parties choose compounding during the earlier stages of litigation. If however, the accused has a valid defence such as a mistake, forgery or coercion among other grounds, then the matter can be litigated through the specified forums.” 19. The observation of the Supreme Court, as mentioned above, makes it clear that the Court was seized of the attempt of the accused to protract the proceedings and as a last resort, to approach the Court seeking permission to compound the offence. 20. The observation of the Supreme Court, as mentioned above, makes it clear that the Court was seized of the attempt of the accused to protract the proceedings and as a last resort, to approach the Court seeking permission to compound the offence. 20. Though neither Section 147 of the NI Act nor Section 320 of Cr.P.C contemplates composition of the offence by the accused, the Apex Court introduced a provision for composition at the instance of the accused in cases coming under the Negotiable Instruments Act. By way of the above-said guidelines, the Supreme Court directed that when the accused makes an application for compounding, he has to pay compensation as per the graded scheme provided therein by way of depositing the costs in the legal services authority concerned. 21. As discussed above, the offences under the NI Act are of a private nature. The master of the prosecution is the complainant. Concurrence of the complainant is a sine qua non for a composition. Whether the guidelines bar the complainant in a case instituted alleging offence under Section 138 of the NI Act from unilaterally compounding the offence. 22. A crime is essentially a wrong against the society and the State. A compromise between the accused and the victim in the normal course should not absolve the accused from criminal liability. The various legislations, including the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Sanhita permit the composition of certain offences leading to absolving the accused from criminal liability. Those offences are essentially of private nature or relatively not serious. The underlying policy of law is to promote harmony and peace in society. 23. The offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is fundamentally private in nature. The complainant is the dominus litis of the prosecution in such cases. Section 147 of the NI Act makes the offence under Section 138 of the Act compoundable. The procedure to be followed for compounding the offence is under the Code of Criminal Procedure, as mentioned above. The offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is a regulatory offence which was made punishable only in view of public interest so that the reliability of the instrument is ensured. The ‘compensatory aspect‘ of remedy shall have priority over the ‘punitive aspect‘. The right of the complainant to compound the offence unilaterally is in no way controlled by the guidelines in Damodar S. Prabhu. The ‘compensatory aspect‘ of remedy shall have priority over the ‘punitive aspect‘. The right of the complainant to compound the offence unilaterally is in no way controlled by the guidelines in Damodar S. Prabhu. As I discussed above, in Damodar S. Prabhu, the Supreme Court has facilitated the composition of the offence at the instance of the accused, necessarily with the consent of the complainant. The guidelines are applicable only when the accused makes a request for composition at various stages of litigation. This has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority v. Prateek Jain and Another [ 2014(10) SCC 690 ]. The Apex Court, in paragraph 22 of the judgment, observed thus:- “22.What follows from the above is that normally costs as specified in the Guidelines laid down in the said judgment [Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 520 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1328] have to be imposed on the accused persons while permitting compounding. There can be departure therefrom in a particular case, for good reasons to be recorded in writing by the court concerned. It is for this reason that the Court mentioned three objectives which were sought to be achieved by framing those Guidelines, as taken note of above. It is thus, manifestly the framing of “Guidelines” in that judgment [Damodar S. Prabhu v.Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 520 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1328] was also to achieve a particular public purpose. Here comes the issue for consideration as to whether these Guidelines are to be given a go-by when a case is decided/settled in the Lok Adalat? Our answer is that it may not be necessarily so and a proper balance can be struck taking care of both the situations.” Present case 24. The complainant/respondent No.2 has filed a petition seeking the composition of the offence under Section 147 of the NI Act. He has stated that he is not intending to proceed with the complaint. He submitted that he has no surviving grievance against the accused. I find no reason preventing the complainant from compounding the offence. The composition is accepted. The composition shall have the force of acquittal of the accused. Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2022 is allowed as above. 25. He has stated that he is not intending to proceed with the complaint. He submitted that he has no surviving grievance against the accused. I find no reason preventing the complainant from compounding the offence. The composition is accepted. The composition shall have the force of acquittal of the accused. Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2022 is allowed as above. 25. The conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyoli in C.C.No.83 of 2003 and confirmed by the Sessions Court, Kozhikode in Crl.Appeal No.129 of 2006 stand set aside. 26. The Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above. Before parting with the case, this Court places on record its appreciation to the learned Counsel Sri. K.M.Firoz for his valuable assistance as Amicus Curiae.