JUDGMENT 1. - This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for an order quashing the proceedings in a prosecution against the petitioner on complainant under section 211 I P.C. which was registered as Cr. Case No. 169/1977. It has arisen in the following circumstances. 2. The petitioner herein filed a complaint under s. 406 & 420 IPC against one Kamla Devi in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Beawar. The learned Magistrate did not take cognisance of the case on the complaint. Instead, he forwarded the complaint to the S.H.O. Beawar City under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and further proceedings according to law. On investigation, the S.H.O. submitted a report to the Magistrate under Section 173 Cr. P.C. stating that there was no ground for forwarding Kamla Devi to the court for trial under sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. The said failure report came before the court for orders on September 9, 1977. On the even date, the petitioner herein made another complaint, which he describes as a Narajgi petition in the present proceedings praying for issue of process against cognisance on that complaint on, September 9, 1977. So far as the failure report was concerned, the learned Magistrate accepted it on September 9, 1977 and directed that a complaint be filed against the petitioner herein under section 211 I.P.C. came to be filed. The case which has been registered on that basis is numbered 169/77. 3. Subsequently the learned Magistrate on September 3, 1979 took cognisance on the complaint of the petitioner filed on September 9, 1977 and issued process against Kamla Devi. The criminal case on the basis has been registered as No. 1279/979. 4. Now that cognisance has been taken against Kamla Devi on the second complaint of the petitioner herein and process has already been issued against Kamla Devi under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C., the petitioner has made the present application for an order quashing the proceedings in the case registered as No. 169 of 1977 referred to above. 5. 4. Now that cognisance has been taken against Kamla Devi on the second complaint of the petitioner herein and process has already been issued against Kamla Devi under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C., the petitioner has made the present application for an order quashing the proceedings in the case registered as No. 169 of 1977 referred to above. 5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that since process has already been issued on his second complaint against Kamla Devi under section 406 and 420 I.P C., the very foundation has been knocked out from the prosecution against him which is pending on the basis of the complaint under section 211 I.P.C. After carefully considering the matter, I am of opinion that no interference by this Court is called for in the respective proceedings which are pending in the court below in the two complaints mentioned above. Assuming for the sake of argument that the complaint under section 211 I.P.C. has lost its basis after the court took cognisance in the complaint u/s. 406 I.P.C., even then this Court should not interfere, because the trial court has already suspended the proceedings in criminal case No. 169/77 till the decision in the criminal case No. 1279/79. There is, thus, no possibility of any harassment or inconvenience being caused to the petitioner by permitting the proceedings in case No. 169/77 to remain pending. Petitioner's learned counsel submitted in this connection that notwithstanding the fact that the proceedings case No. 169/77 have been suspending, the petitioner is still required to enter appearance in the court and obtain orders from the court regarding his appearance from time to time and that thus he is being unnecessarily harassed. I am not aware of any provision of law which permits a court to require a particular person to enter appearance before it in a case in which the proceedings have been suspended by it under its own orders or under the orders of a superior court. The learned Magistrate will himself look into this aspect of the case so as to avoid unnecessary inconvenience to the petitioner in case No. 169/77, so long as the proceedings therein remain suspended. 6. In conclusion, therefore, this petition fails and is dismissed in limine.Petition Dismissed. *******