JUDGMENT : VIJAY BISHNOI, J. 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the FIR No.187/2016 dated 01.09.2016 of Police Station, Sadar, District Barmer for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. 2. This misc. petition has been filed essentially on the ground that since the petitioner has entered into compromise with the accused respondent No.2-Prem Singh named in the impugned FIR, the FIR be quashed qua the petitioner. 3. On the last date when this Court raised a quarry that whether the impugned FIR lodged by SHO, Police Station, Kotwali, District Barmer can be quashed against the petitioner on the ground that he has entered into compromise with the main accused named in the impugned FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for some time to complete his instruction. 4. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the validity of the FIR while claiming that the complainant i.e. SHO, Police Station, Kotwali, District Barmer has no jurisdiction to carry out detail investigation on a complaint filed by the co-accused respondent No.2-Prem Singh on 12.08.2016. It is contended that the impugned FIR is solely based on the investigation conducted by the complainant on the complaint filed by Prem Singh without registration of FIR and therefore, the impugned FIR based on the said investigation report is not sustainable. 5. In support of above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Punati Ramulu & Ors. reported in AIR 1993 SC 2644 and Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors. reported in 2008(2) ALD(Cri) 923 and the decisions of High Court of Kerala and High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore rendered in T.P. Nandakumar v. State of Kerala & Anr. reported in 2008 Cri.L.J. 298 and T.S. Khadeer Ahmed S/o Abdul Khudus v. State of Karnataka reported in 2010 Cri.L.J. 614. respectively. 6. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2-Prem Singh S/o Mehtab Singh has filed written complaint to the SHO, Police Station, Kotwali, District Barmer alleging that he was employee of the petitioner-Mahendra Singh S/o Jaitmal Singh. respectively. 6. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2-Prem Singh S/o Mehtab Singh has filed written complaint to the SHO, Police Station, Kotwali, District Barmer alleging that he was employee of the petitioner-Mahendra Singh S/o Jaitmal Singh. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner-Mahendra Singh has committed cheating with him and got registered three vehicles Scorpio, Bolero and Highway in his name without informing him. It is prayed that in relation to registration of the said vehicles, an investigation be conducted and the registration made in the name of him be cancelled. 7. After receiving the said written report, the SHO, Police Station, Kotwali, District Barmer started investigation, however, in the meantime, on 23.08.2016, respondent No.2-Prem Singh has filed a representation along with his affidavit, in which it is averred that he himself has purchased the above mentioned three vehicles and got the same registered at RTO, Barmer. It is further averred in the representation that he has filed the complaint against the petitioner-Mahendra Singh due to some misunderstanding. Till then, the SHO, Police Station, Kotwali, District Barmer has received information from the District Transport Officer, Barmer, District Excise Officer, Udaipur and SHO, Police Station, Pratap Nagar, District Udaipur regarding the registration of the said vehicles. The SHO, Police Station, Kotwali, District Barmer has found that the two vehicles were purchased by the respondent No.2-Prem Singh himself from the authorised dealer and he himself has got those vehicles registered in his name at RTO, Barmer. In respect of one of the vehicle, it is revealed that the said vehicle was never purchased nor registered in the name of respondent No.2-Prem Singh and the registration certificate of the said vehicle is forged one. During the enquiry, it is also revealed that the registration number of the said vehicle is of some other vehicle, which is in possession of some other person. 8. After collecting all the details, the SHO, Police Station, Kotwali, District Barmer has submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police, Barmer and on his instruction, he has lodged the impugned FIR essentially against the respondent No.2- Prem Singh. During the course of investigation, the police has also found the involvement of the petitioner in commission of crime along with co-accused respondent No.2-Prem Singh. 9. During the course of investigation, the police has also found the involvement of the petitioner in commission of crime along with co-accused respondent No.2-Prem Singh. 9. In view of the above noted facts the contention of the petitioner, to the efect that the complainant has no jurisdiction to conduct any investigation initially on the complaint filed by the respondent No.2-Prem Singh in respect of forge registration of three vehicles without registration of any FIR, is not tenable. 10. The SHO, Police Station, Kotwali, District Barmer was in receipt of written complaint from the respondent No.2-Prem Singh and he has investigation about the truthfulness of the allegations levelled in the complaint and during that course he found that the complaint filed by the respondent No.2-Prem Singh is false and the registration of one of the vehicle, description of which was given in the complaint, is forged one then in my opinion the SHO, Police Station, Kotwali, District Barmer being a Police Officer is duty bound to inform about the commission of offence to the respective Police Station and he has rightly reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Barmer, who in turned has directed him for registration of the FIR against the accused persons. 11. So far as the judgments, on which the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance, are concerned, after going through those judgments, I am of the opinion that the facts of those cases are quite distinguishable from the above noted facts and, therefore, the same are not applicable in this matter. In view of above, this criminal misc. petition devoid of any force is hereby dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.