DAVE, J.—This is a revision application by Mangla and Binjia under sec. 435 Cr.P.C. In the alternative it is urged that if the revision does not lie under sec. 435 Cr.P.C, the application should be treated as one under sec. 561A Cr. P. C. 2. It is stated by the petitioners that petitioner Mangla had filed a complaint against Bakta and 6 others for offences under sec. 447 and 352 I.P.C. in the court of the Munsif Magistrate, Jodhpur. That complaint related to an incident which took place on 8. 8. 1956. The Magistrate discharged other accused, but framed charges against Ummedsingh and Bakta. Ummedsingh was also acquitted later on. Bakta alone was convicted under sec. 352 I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- or in default to undergo 15 days imprisonment. This judgment was given on 30.7.1960. A few months before the said judgment i.e., on 30.3.1960 the Police challaned the present petitioners Mangla and Binjia for offences under sec. 325 I.P.C. in the court of the Magistrate F.C. No.1, Jodhpur. The Magistrate has framed charges under sec. 325 and 326 I.P.C. against both the petitioners in this case. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the challan put forward by the Police against the petitioners is in respect of the same incident about which Mangla petitioner had filed a complaint and in which Bakta was convicted under sec. 352 I.P.C. According to the learned counsel, the trial of this case should be ordered to be quashed otherwise there would be two different judgments of two courts with respect to the same occurrence. In support of this argument, the learned counsel has referred to A.I.R. 1936 Cal. 224 (Mohammed Hossain and others Vs. Bholanath Das) and AIR 1943 Lahore 304 (Chaman Lal Vs. Emperor.) 4. I have given due consideration to the argument raised by the learned counsel and also gone through that authorities cited by him. It may be pointed out that in case of Moha-mmed Hossain and others Vs. Bholanath Das the accused who were charged under sec. 366 I.P.C. were acquitted on appeal and a subsequent prosecution was started against them under sec. 497 and 498 on the same facts. It may be pointed out that in case of Moha-mmed Hossain and others Vs. Bholanath Das the accused who were charged under sec. 366 I.P.C. were acquitted on appeal and a subsequent prosecution was started against them under sec. 497 and 498 on the same facts. It was, therefore, held that the proceedings in the next case were an abuse of the process of the court and that the second prosecution was undertaken in order to endeavor- to defeat the effect of the previous acquittal. It is obvious that in that case the accused were once acquitted of the charges framed against them on the basis of certain facts. Later on they were prosecuted again on the same facts by showing that other offences on those facts were made out against them. This was an indirect attempt to defeat the effect of their previous acquittal and it was, in those circumstances, that the learned Judge considered it proper to resort to the provisions of sec. 561A and they quashed the proceedings in exercise of their inherent powers. The facts of the present case are very different. The petitioners were not prosecuted for any offence prior to the date on which the Police report was filed against them in the present case and therefore the question of their being tried over again does not arise at all. In Chamanlal Vs. Emperor (AIR 1943 Lahore 304) also a person was acquitted on three charges and he was subsequently prosecuted for 5 similar charges. It was found that the evidence in the remaining cases was, identical and the facts were the same as that of the three cases in which he was acquitted and therefore his second prosecution was tantamount to the abuse of the process of the court. It is clear that this case was of the same type as the Calcutta case referred to above. It has already been observed above that the petitioners in the present case are not being tried for the second time. It was very unfortunate that the Police took a very long time in filing a report against the petitioners and therefore this case was not tried earlier. It has already been observed above that the petitioners in the present case are not being tried for the second time. It was very unfortunate that the Police took a very long time in filing a report against the petitioners and therefore this case was not tried earlier. From the facts which have been cited by the petitioners, it appears that this is a cross case against them and it cannot be urged with any justification that because one case has been decided earlier, the proceedings in the cross case must be quashed without the determination of the trial in the regular way. It would have been very much desirable if both the cases were tried by the same court though separately and then decided on the same date. That could not be done obviously because of the slackness on the part of the Police which investigated the case. The mere fact, however, that the case instituted on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner Mangla terminated earlier does not give him the right to urge that the cross case filed against him on the Police Report must be dismissed without any trial. It cannot be urged with any justification that there is an abuse of the process of the court against the petitioners. 5. There is thus no force either in the revision application or in the application under sec. 561 A and it is hereby rejected.