ORDER : Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. 1. Accused-petitioner has laid this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashment of FIR No. 188/2015 of Police Station Sadar, Bhilwara for offences under Sections 279, 341, 323, 307, 379 and 34 IPC. 2. Precisely, it is stated in the petition that a trivial incident has been blown out of proportion by the respondent-complainant due to political reasons or other unknown reasons. It is also submitted that as a matter of fact respondent-complainant has suffered injuries due to collision of motorcycle and most of the injuries suffered by him are simple except four injuries which are though grievous in nature but not dangerous to life so as to constitute offence under Section 307 IPC. A specific ground is set out in the petition that when investigation in the matter was in vogue, the complainant and petitioner sorted out their dispute and all decks were cleared regarding the misunderstanding which led to filing of the FIR. A written compromise in the form of an application was also submitted by the respondent-complainant for withdrawal of the FIR. 3. There remains no quarrel that as per the provisions of Cr.P.C., once an FIR is registered, the case cannot be withdrawn and it is only in respect of a complaint case that a complainant may seek withdrawal of the prosecution. 4. Be that as it may, an affidavit is also placed on record by the petitioner with application No. 1106/2016, wherein complainant has completely absolved the accused-petitioner for commission of offence and has very candidly submitted that he is not interested to pursue the matter. 4. Be that as it may, an affidavit is also placed on record by the petitioner with application No. 1106/2016, wherein complainant has completely absolved the accused-petitioner for commission of offence and has very candidly submitted that he is not interested to pursue the matter. The relevant excerpt from the affidavit of complainant, in vernacular, reads as under:- eSa 'kiFkiwoZd fuosnu djrk gw¡ fd esjk uke Jh dY;k.k vkpk;Z firk Jh ukFkw yky th vkpk;Z mez ckfyx fuoklh dksVMh rglhy dksVMh ftyk HkhyokM+k&jkt- gSA eSa 'kiFkiwoZd fuosnu djrk gw¡ fd eq> 'kiFkdrkZ }kjk fnukad 14&10&2015 dks iqfyl Fkkuk lnj esa esjs ipkZ c;ku ds vk/kkj ij tks ,QvkbZvkj ntZ dh xbZ Fkh ftl ,QvkbZvkj ds uEcj 188@2015 gSA mDr ,QvkbZvkj esa esjs tks ipkZ c;ku fy, x, Fks ml ipkZ c;ku esa eSaus euh"k xqtZj firk Jh t;nso xqtZj dk tks uke fy[kk Fkk og xyr Qgeh o yksxksa ds cgdkos esa vkdj yksxksa ds dgs vuqlkj fy[kok;kA ?kVuk ds oDr ekgkSy dkQh xje Fkk o dkQh HkhM+ FkhA tYnckth esa o xyr Qgeh esa eSaus euh"k xqtZj dk uke fy[kok;k tks fd bl ?kVuk esa ugha Fkk o vkt bl ?kVuk dks ,d o"kZ djhc gks pqdk gSA ?kVuk ds oDr tks HkhM+ Fkh mUgha esa ls dqN yksxksa dh lquh lquk;h ckrksa ds vuqlkj eSaus mDr ,QvkbZvkj ds ipkZ c;ku o ,QvkbZvkj esa tks c;ku fy, x, Fks o mlds ckn tks c;ku gq, mlesa euh"k xqtZj dk uke fy[kk;k Fkk okLrfodrk esa esjh xkM+h Lyhi gksus ds dkj.k ;g ?kVuk ?kfVr gqbZA okLro eas euh"k xqtZj ;k vU; ds }kjk ekjihV djus ds dkj.k ;g ?kVuk ?kfVr ugha gqbZ gSA vr% Jheku ls fuosnu gS fd mDr ,QvkbZvkj Øekad 188@2015 Fkkuk lnj esa esjs bl izfrosnu dks Lohdkj djus ds ckn gh vfxze dk;Zokgh djus dh d`ik djkosaA HkhyokM+k fnukad& 02-11-2016 Sd/- gLrk{kj lR;kiu eSa 'kiFkiwoZd lR;kfir djrk gw¡ fd mDr 'kiFki= esa of.kZr leLr rF; esjs Lo;a ds futh Kku ,oa fo'okl ls lgh ,oa lR; gSA HkhyokM+k fnukad& 02-11-2016 Sd/- gLrk{kj 5. Therefore, in totality, the factum of settlement between the parties/withdrawal of FIR by the complainant is set out a ground for quashment of FIR and entire proceedings in the matter. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Therefore, in totality, the factum of settlement between the parties/withdrawal of FIR by the complainant is set out a ground for quashment of FIR and entire proceedings in the matter. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gehlot, has urged that it was a case of some misunderstanding and that eventually led to filing of FIR by the complainant, who has subsequently regretted by submitting requisite application before the Superintendent of Police for withdrawal of the case itself. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that in this view of the matter and looking to the injuries suffered by respondent-complainant, which were caused due to accident and not inflicted by petitioner, the impugned FIR and further proceedings are liable to be annulled. Learned counsel has also urged that most of the injuries are simple, i.e. abrasions, and only four grievous injuries are suffered by the respondent-complainant, and those injuries are also prima facie not dangerous to life, is a significant factor to exercise inherent powers for quashing FIR. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that in totality of circumstances, taking into account the settlement between the parties/retraction by the complainant to pursue prosecution against the petitioner, the impugned FIR merits annulment with entire proceedings for securing ends of justice. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Rajpurohit, submits that per se the argument of the learned counsel, that it was a trivial incident and blown out of proportion, appears to be quite alluring but not of substance because at the behest of accused-petitioner, twice investigation was changed and eventually the Investigating Agency has thrice conducted investigation in the matter. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that when third investigation was in vogue, the complainant came forward for withdrawal of the case, and therefore, the accused-petitioner has not only bothered Investigating Agency thrice but further it has caused pecuniary loss to the State in carrying out investigation thrice. It is in that background, learned Public Prosecutor has urged that accused-petitioner may be asked/directed to compensate the State adequately by remitting requisite amount in the Police Welfare Fund. 8. Learned counsel, Mr. Ramesh Purohit, appearing for the complainant, submits that in fact there was some misunderstanding between the parties and now the said misunderstanding has been sorted out and the complainant is not interested to pursue the matter against the accused-petitioner. Mr. 8. Learned counsel, Mr. Ramesh Purohit, appearing for the complainant, submits that in fact there was some misunderstanding between the parties and now the said misunderstanding has been sorted out and the complainant is not interested to pursue the matter against the accused-petitioner. Mr. Purohit further submits that in fact the injuries suffered by the respondent-complainant were due to road accident and no overt-act/criminal act can be attributed to the accused-petitioner for the injuries suffered by him. Mr. Purohit also very candidly admitted that none of the injuries suffered by the accused respondent are dangerous to life, and therefore, in view of subsequent developments, the impugned FIR and further proceedings are liable to be quashed and set aside. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent-complainant and perused the entire case diary. 10. There remains no quarrel that impugned FIR was lodged by respondent-complainant castigating accused-petitioner for serious offences including offence under Section 307 IPC. The aforesaid offence being serious in nature is not compoundable within the four corners of Section 320 Cr.P.C. The law on the subject is no more res-integra that inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is distinct and different from the power of a criminal Court for compounding offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. In appropriate cases, inherent powers can be exercised by the Court to quash criminal proceedings for bringing/restoring peace between the parties and doing substantial justice. However, while exercising inherent jurisdiction, the Court is required to see the nature of offence and the harmful effect of the crime on public at large. The inherent jurisdiction cannot be exercised by this Court to quash proceedings in respect of serious offences like murder, rape and dacoity etc. or other offences of mental depravity. It is also noteworthy that criminal proceedings for offences under the Special Act, more particularly, Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, are not liable to be annulled in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. In that background, the alleged criminal delinquency, attributed to the petitioner, though prima facie appears to be serious in nature, i.e. offence under Section 307 IPC, but the same cannot be taken on its face value. In that background, the alleged criminal delinquency, attributed to the petitioner, though prima facie appears to be serious in nature, i.e. offence under Section 307 IPC, but the same cannot be taken on its face value. If the offence under Section 307 IPC, which is slapped against the accused-petitioner, is examined in the backdrop of injury report, then, it is abundantly clear that although complainant has suffered fifteen injuries but only four injuries are reported to be grievous and rest of the injuries are simple. The grievous injuries are injury Nos. 2, 10, 11 & 12. Injury No. 2 is on right forearm from lower 2/3rd and wrist upto base of fingers. Injury No. 10, 11 & 12 are punctured wounds on right knee respectively 1 x 1 cm. x bone depth medial side, 1 x 1 cm. x bone depth left side and 1 x 1 cm. x bone depth lower side. Therefore, injuries may be of grievous nature but if these injuries are examined on the touchstone of Section 307 IPC, then it is crystal clear that none of these injuries are dangerous to life. It is also noteworthy that the respondent-complainant has completely absolved the petitioner for inflicting these injuries and has stated on oath that he has suffered these injuries due to road accident. 11. This Court in [1] Basti Ram & Ors. v. State & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 392/2015, decided on 19.03.2015), [2] Pradeep Singh v. State & Ors. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2458/2016, decided on 09.09.2016), [3] Meghraj Vyas & Ors. v. State & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2571/2016, decided on 05.10.2016), and [4] Lalu Ram & Ors. Vs. State & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1744/2015, decided on 07.08.2015), while examining the facts of the individual cases, has permitted compromise even in respect of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC by relying on the decisions of Supreme Court in Yogendra Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., (2014) 9 SCC 653 and Narendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2014 Cr.L.R. (SC) 351. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., (2014) 9 SCC 653 and Narendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2014 Cr.L.R. (SC) 351. The case in hand, if thoroughly examined in the light of aforesaid judgments and the nature of injuries suffered by the complainant with his retraction to pursue persecution against the petitioner, then, in the considered opinion of this Court, the instant case is squarely covered by the ratio decidendi of these verdicts. Essentially, in all these verdicts, law laid down by the Supreme Court, in case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303 , has been followed. 12. Therefore, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case and taking into account the fact that respondent-complainant has shown his unwillingness to pursue the matter by entering into compromise, I feel inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner for quashment of FIR and entire proceedings in the matter. 13. At this stage, it is just and proper to examine the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor that investigation was changed twice at the behest of accused-petitioner and the State machinery was set in motion for carrying out investigation in the matter thrice with pragmatic approach. While proceeding for the investigation on three occasions, the Police has also issued warrant of arrest against the accused-petitioner besides taking botheration to unearth the truth, is a vital fact which cannot lose sight of the Court in the given circumstances. Undeniably, after completing investigation twice, it is only when the third investigation was in vogue, the respondent-complainant has either settled the matter with the accused-petitioner or revealed the truth about alleged incident by submitting application before the Superintendent of Police for withdrawal of the case. 14. In this view of the matter, thrice the State machinery is utilized for carrying out investigation in the matter and during investigation the Police Department has also deployed so many police personnels and invested handsome amount for collecting evidence in the matter, cannot be overlooked by the Court even while acceding to the prayer of the petitioner for quashment of FIR and entire proceedings. 15. 15. Therefore, taking into account the fact that FIR was lodged in the year 2015 and Police has conducted investigation thrice in the matter, it would be just and appropriate to direct accused-petitioner to pay requisite cost, which the Investigating Agency has incurred for conducting investigation thrice in the matter. With all objectivity, the Court is moderately assessing the amount of cost to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and the petitioner is directed to deposit Rs. 50,000/- with the State Exchequer/Treasury in the Police Welfare Fund within a period of a fortnight from today. 16. The upshot of above discussion is that the instant misc. petition is allowed and the impugned FIR and entire proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed and set aside. The accused-petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with the Police Welfare Fund within the stipulated period of fifteen days. 17. It is made clear that if the requisite amount is not deposited by accused-petitioner within the stipulated period then the investigating agency shall be free to take appropriate action against the accused-petitioner in accordance with law.