JUDGMENT 1. - Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC. praying that the case, arising out of FIRNo.453/2013, registered at Police Station, Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh, for offences under Sections 180,188,417,421 and 422 IPC against the present petitioner, be quashed. 2. This Court on 18.09.2013, had passed the following order:-Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner had filed contempt petition before this Court, for mala fide reasons, FIR has been lodged against the petitioner, it is further contended that the FIR does not give details regarding embezzlement. Issue notice to the respondents for 01.10.2013. Shri A.R.Nikub, learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice. A copy of the petition be served on him. Shri Nikub is directed to submit factual report of the Investigating Officer." 3. Today, Mr. A.R.Nikub, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, has submitted factual report of the SHO Police Station, Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh wherein it is stated that two cases were registered, one case, FIR No.504/2012, dated 26.10.2012, and another case, FIR No.506/2013, dated 23.09.2013. It is stated by the learned counsel that in the first case, cancellation report has been submitted, whereas second case, arising out of FIR No.506/2013, dated 23.09.2013, is pending for investigation. 4. Mr.Trilok Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has submitted that the petitioner is sought to be prosecuted in the present FIR No.453/2013, for offences under Sections 180,188,417,421 and422 IPC. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is specific bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. and for offences falling under Sections 172 to 188 IPC, petitioner cannot be tried, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is an administratively or subordinate. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, no complaint has been filed, rather the petitioner is being prosecuted by registering a FIR. 5. It is a well settled legal preposition of law that if somebody is to be prosecuted for offence falling under Sections 172 to 188 IPC, complaint in writing is to be filed, even though in the same transaction some other offences have been committed, which have not been specified under Section 195 Cr.P.C. 6. Mr. 5. It is a well settled legal preposition of law that if somebody is to be prosecuted for offence falling under Sections 172 to 188 IPC, complaint in writing is to be filed, even though in the same transaction some other offences have been committed, which have not been specified under Section 195 Cr.P.C. 6. Mr. A.R.Nikub, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, has failed to advance any meaningful arguments as to why complaint in writing has not been filed by the public servant to prosecute the petitioner for offence mentioned in the FIR. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that in view of the specific bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. petitioner cannot be prosecuted, except complaint in writing to be filed by the public servant, therefore, lodging of the FIR is not only misuse and abuse of the process of the law, but is also not called for. 8. Consequently, present petition is accepted. The impugned FIR is, hereby, quashed. 9. However, liberty is granted to the Investigating Officer or the concerned public servant to file complaint in writing for prosecution of the petitioner, for offences, qua which FIR has been registered. Stay application also stands disposed of. *******