JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - This is an application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated 19-2-1992 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhubaneswar, in G.R. Case No. 538 of 1986. The Petitioners are the accused persons. The G.R. Case was registered on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by one Sanatan Bisoi who was a Conductor of the bus bearing registration number O.S.C. 383. In the F.I. R. it was alleged that the accused persons threatened the informant, abused him in filthy language and assaulted him after surrounding him. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the case was registered under Sections 342, 506, 323, 294/34, Indian Penal Code. However, after investigation while submitting the charge sheet, it was alleged that apart from the aforesaid offences, the accused persons had committed the offences under Sections 186 and 189, Indian Penal Code, as they had abused and threatened the Investigating Officer when he had gone to the spot for investigation. On the basis of the aforesaid charge sheet cognizance was taken. During the pendency of the case before the concerned Magistrate, a petition u/s 320 Code of Criminal Procedure, was filed on behalf of the informant stating that he had compounded the offences with accused persons. The Magistrate while permitting compounding of the offences under Sections 342, 506 and 323/34, Indian Penal Code, observed that the case must proceed as the offences under Sections 294, 186 and 189, Indian Penal Code, were not compoundable. Against the aforesaid order, the present application has been filed. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged offences under Sections 186 and 189, I.P.C., in the absence of an appropriate complaint petition filed by the public servant concerned, as contemplated u/s 195(1)(a) (i), Criminal Procedure Code. He has further submitted that in the trial, the alleged victim as well as his brother alleged to be an eye witness, and another witness has already been examined and the alleged victim has not stated anything about the alleged offence u/s 294, I.P.C.. It is, therefore, submitted by the learned Counsel that the continuance of the criminal proceeding would be an abuse of the process of Court and shall not be in the interest of justice and is required to be quashed. It is, therefore, submitted by the learned Counsel that the continuance of the criminal proceeding would be an abuse of the process of Court and shall not be in the interest of justice and is required to be quashed. The learned Counsel appearing for the State submitted that since the alleged offences under Sections 294, 186 and 189, I.P.C. are not compoundable, the trial court rightly decided to proceed with the trial of the case. He further submitted that the materials on record indicate that the Investigating Officer and the Constable had been abused and obstructed and as such prima facie case has been made out under Sections 186 and 189, I.P.C.. He has further submitted that since the charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer complaining about the obstruction in his duty, the same may be treated to be a complaint in writing by the concerned public servant. 3. In the present case, cognizance has been taken on the basis of the police report. The informant who had lodged the F.I. R. was definitely not a public servant. As a matter of fact, the charge sheet itself indicates that the alleged offences under Sections 186 and 189, I.P.C. had been committed in relation to the. Investigating Officer himself. By no stretch of imagination, the filing of charge sheet can be taken to be a complaint in writing as envisaged in Section 195 (l)(a)(i), Criminal Procedure Code. A perusal of the aforesaid section clearly indicates that no Court can take cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188, I.P. C. except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate. In the present case, the Investigating Officer is a public servant who is alleged to have been obstructed from performing his duties and abused. He could have filed a written complaint before the Magistrate and if a complaint would have been filed, the Magistrate was required to proceed in accordance with the procedure envisaged for taking cognizance in complaint cases. In the present case, no complaint in writing having been filed, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged offences under Sections 186 and 189. I.P.C.. The submission of the learned Counsel for the State that the charge sheet itself may be treated to be a complaint in writing cannot be accepted. In the present case, no complaint in writing having been filed, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged offences under Sections 186 and 189. I.P.C.. The submission of the learned Counsel for the State that the charge sheet itself may be treated to be a complaint in writing cannot be accepted. Apart from other things, it appears that the Investigating Officer himself is stated to be the alleged victim. In that case, he could not have investigated into the matter and filed charge sheet. Therefore, the submission that the charge sheet itself may be treated to be a complaint petition cannot be accepted. Moreover, keeping in view the punishment prescribed under Sections 186 and 189. I.P.C. and keeping in view the period of limitation prescribed u/s 468. Criminal Procedure Code now it would not be proper to treat the said charge sheet as a complaint petition of the concerned public servant. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no escape from the conclusion that the order of cognizance relating to alleged offences under Sections 186 and 189, I.P. C. was invalid and, therefore, that order of cognizance is quashed. 4. The next question is as to whether the trial should proceed in respect of the alleged offence u/s 294, I.P.C.. The Magistrate was definitely correct in stating that the alleged offence u/s 294 was not compoundable. Even then as observed in the decision reported in 82 (1996) C.L.T. 723 : (1996) 11 O.C. Rule 77 Sudhakar Naik and 13 Ors. v. State and 3 Ors. the High Court in appropriate case can quash a proceeding in respect of a non-compoundable offence in the interest of justice. In the present case, it appears that the alleged victim as well as two other witnesses has been examined. The alleged victim has categorically stated that he had not been abused in obscene language. The other two witnesses have also not stated anything regarding the alleged abuse in obscene language. The incident itself was of the year 1986 and twelve years have lapsed in the meantime. The alleged victim has categorically stated that he had not been abused in obscene language. The other two witnesses have also not stated anything regarding the alleged abuse in obscene language. The incident itself was of the year 1986 and twelve years have lapsed in the meantime. As already noticed, the accused persons have been acquitted in respect of the alleged offences under Sections 323, 506 and 342, I.P. C. in view of the compromise petition filed on behalf of the informant In such view of the matter, it would not be in the interest of justice to allow the criminal case to continue any further. For the aforesaid reasons, the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 538 of 1986 in the Court of the S.D. J.M., Bhubaneswar, is quashed. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed. Crl. Misc. case allowed. Final Result : Allowed