ORDER P.K. Lohra, J. Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.294/2016, registered at Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur for offence under Section 323, 341 and 427 IPC. 2. In the impugned FIR, complainant has alleged that accused petitioner has given him beatings and wrongfully restrained him as there was scuffle between him and the accused-petitioner. For quashing the FIR, it is stated in the petition that complainant has submitted a written application before the Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate, Jodhpur, wherein it is stated with clarity and precision that he has lodged FIR under the influence of some of the members of the society. It is further stated that accused petitioner has not committed any offence, thereby the complainant has made an endeavour to withdraw FIR/Complaint invoking in his wisdom under Section 257 Cr.P.C. Therefore, precisely, the petitioner has prayed for quashing FIR on the ground that now the dispute has been settled between the rival parties and the complainant is not inclined to pursue the matter. The Court is conscious that Section 257 Cr.P.C. cannot be applied in the instant case but certainly this fact is of great significance in the backdrop of peculiar facts of the instant case. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant has very candidly admitted that the complainant is not inclined to pursue the matter as the dispute/misunderstanding has been sorted out between rival parties and as a matter of fact FIR was lodged by the complainant under the influence of some members of the society. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the factual report that after investigation evidence is collected and prima facie offence under Section 166, 341, 323, 427 IPC is made out against the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the application submitted by complainant before the Commissioner of Police. 6. Looking to the nature of offence viz., offence under Sections 323, 341 & 427 IPC, which are compoundable within the four corners of Section 320 Cr.P.C., there remains only offence under Section 166 IPC, which is not compoundable. As a matter of fact, offence under Section 166 IPC relates to a public servant but the punishment provided therein is simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. As a matter of fact, offence under Section 166 IPC relates to a public servant but the punishment provided therein is simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ] has although issued a word of caution that serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be compounded but then Court has also observed that each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed. Considering the fact that accused petitioner is a public servant but looking to the change in the stand of the complainant for withdrawal of accusation and disinterest to pursue matter against the petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court, possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put the accused to a great oppression and prejudice, and extreme injustice would be caused to him if the proceedings are not quashed. In that background, the recitals contained in the application submitted by the complainant are also significant wherein he has completely bailed out the petitioner from commission of any offence. In that background, the recitals contained in the application submitted by the complainant are also significant wherein he has completely bailed out the petitioner from commission of any offence. The complete text of the application, in vernacular, reads as under: lsok esa] Jheku~ iqfyl vk;qDr egksn;] if'pe] vk;qDrky;] tks/kiqj fo"k;%& iqfyl eqdnek esa dk;Zokgh ugha djokus ckcr~A egksn;] uez fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ dfiy mQZ xksiky iq= Jh iwuepUn] tkfr lksuh fuoklh xq:vksa dk rkykc] izrkiuxj] tks/kiqj dh vtZ bl izdkj gS fd fnukad 26-06-2016 dks jk=h esa eSa o esjk nksLr fnfyi iq= Jh xksiky tkfr lksuh fuoklh xq:vksa dk rkykc izrkiuxj tks/kiqj ge nksuksa ?kksM+ksa ds pkSd ls xqjksa dk rkykc eksVjlkbZfdy ls tk jgs FksA jkLrs esa iqfyl pkSdh izrkiuxj ds vkxs ,d flikgh onhZ esa [kM+k Fkk] ftlus :dus dk bZ'kkjk fd;k rks ge yksx :ds] mlus dgk eq.s us'kuy gS.mywe izrkiuxj NksM+ksa] ftl ij geus eksVj lkbZfdy ij cSBkdj us'kuy gS.Mywe ds vkxs NksM+k o flikgh mrjdj lkbZM esa pyk x;kA ge yksx ogha [kM+s jgs] ogka ij jk=h xLr esa gkse xkMZ ds nks&rhu vkneh onhZ esa [kM+s Fks] mlesa ls ,d gksexkMZ dk vkdj gekjs dks Vksdk fd jk=h ;gka D;ksa [kM+s gksA gekjs rhuksa ds chp dgklwuh gks xbZ rc flikgh gfjflag us ge rhuksa dks le>kdj ge nksuksa dks ?kj tkus ds fy, jokuk dj fn;k ;g ckr ?kjokyksa o lekt ds yksxksa dks crkbZ rc lekt ds yksx iapx.k ,df=r gksdj iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa o Fkkuk izrkiuxj tkdj flikgh gfjflag ds fo:) eqdnek ntZ djok fn;kA eSa o esjk nksLr nksuksa lekt ds yksxksa ds ncko esa vk x, bl dkj.k lekt okyksa us eqdnek ua0 294@2016 /kkjk 323] 341 Hkk0na0la0] esa ntZ djok;kA ge nksuksa gfjflag ls ifjfpr ugha gS u gh gekjs lkFk gfjflag us ekjihV dh rFk ge yksxksa us lkekftd ncko esa vkdj eqdnek ntZ djok;k gSA vr% Jhekuth ls fuosnu gS fd ge iqfyl dk;Zokgh ugha djokuk pkgrsA Hkonh; dfiy mQZ xksiky iq= Jh iwue pUn tkfr lksuh] fuoklh xqjksa dk rkykc izrkiuxj tks/kiqjA" 7. While it is true that investigation in the matter has been completed but then offences under Section 341, 323 and 427 IPC are compoundable by the victim himself and in the instant case when the victim complainant has absolved the accused petitioner from all these allegations, rigor of Section 320 Cr.P.C. can very well be pressed into service inasmuch as even after filing of charge-sheet also on the strength of compromise petitioner can be acquitted for these offences. Now, the solitary offence under Section 166 IPC, which is an offence by a public servant, in the backdrop of written application submitted by the respondent complainant, quoted supra, has also lost its significance to a great extent and in the changed circumstances there are remotest possibilities that complainant may depose against the petitioner to bring home guilt for the said offence. It is also noteworthy that for the offence under Section 166 IPC no substantive sentence is provided by the legislature and the Court in its discretion may pass a substantive sentence or fine only. That apart, for prosecuting a public servant, sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is also essential. Therefore, in totality, continuing proceedings against the petitioner for solitary offence under Section 166 IPC in the event of withdrawal of complaint by the complainant may prove to be unproductive so as to bring home guilt against him. Though alleged wrong is committed by a public servant but basically against the victim and the victim himself has completely disowned the alleged offence/overt act or omission of the petitioner, is sufficient to persuade the Court to exercise inherent powers for quashing the criminal proceedings. 8. Resultantly, the petition is allowed and impugned FIR No.294/2016, registered at Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur and all further proceedings thereto are hereby quashed.