JUDGMENT V.N. Misra, J. - These are a Criminal Revision and a petition u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure to get the same order dated 5-2-1981 of Sri B.P. Srivastava, v. Additional Sessions Judge , Mainpuri Criminal Revision No. 131 of 1980 set aside by means of which he allowed Criminal Revision No. 131 of 1980 and directed that the applicant be also summoned u/s 406, Indian Penal Code . This case in which the applicant has been ordered to be summoned was pending in the court of the Special Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri. 2. The facts involved in the case are that the husband of the applicant Harbans Kishore Darbari is said to be a reputed lawyer of Mainpuri who lodged a report at the police station complaining that his motor cycle was stolen from the Court's premises. On this report a case was registered and when the police raided the house of Ram Swarup Yadav of village Kuchela the stolen motor cycle of Harbans Kishore Darbari was recovered. Ram Swarup Yadav was not present at his house but his wife was arrested and prosecuted for having been found in possession of stolen property. According to the petition u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure the arrest of the wife of Ram Swarup Yadav was taken to be very insulting and Ram Swarup Yadav and his relatives and associates decided to get the wife of Darbari on whose report she was arrested involved in some false case. On 11-6-1978 Rajendra Singh who is also resident of village Kuchela like Ram Swarup Yadav lodged a FIR against the applicant, her husband Harbans Kishore Darbari in which it was said that his own motor cycle UTE 1391 was taken away on 4-6-1978 by Harbans Kishore Darbari, but he did not return it. While the case relating to misappropriation of this motor cycle of Rajendra Singh was being investigated one Swatantra Mohan Jain produced this motor cycle UTE 1391 at the police station. He also produced papers to show that this motor cycle had been mortgaged in his possession. The police investigated the case registered on the report of Rajendra Singh, came to the conclusion that the case was false and submitted a final report in it. The final report was placed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and was accepted. He also produced papers to show that this motor cycle had been mortgaged in his possession. The police investigated the case registered on the report of Rajendra Singh, came to the conclusion that the case was false and submitted a final report in it. The final report was placed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and was accepted. The complainant filed a criminal complaint on 28-7-78 against the applicant, her husband Darbari and also included Swatantra Mohan Jain in it as an accused. In this case the learned Magistrate summoned Swatantra Mohan Jain and Harbans Kishore Darbari as accused, but did not summon the applicant. Against this order a revision was filed before the Sessions Judge. This revision was allowed and by means of the impugned order he directed that the applicant be also summoned as an accused u/s 406, Indian Penal Code . 3. If from the very inception the applicant and her husband Harbans Kishore Darbari Advocate had any intention of taking away and misappropriating the motor cycle of Rajendra Singh then they should have gone to his house to get the motor cycle. It was, however, said that they happened to meet Rajendra Singh at Mandir Hanumanji and Harbans Kishore Darbari and the applicant who were going on foot asked him for the motor cycle and said that they would return it within one hour. If they had any prior dishonest intention of misappropriating the motor cycle they would not have relied on a chance meeting with Rajendra Singh at Mandir Hanumanji. 4. Even if every word of the complaint was accepted as correct even then the applicant only asked Rajendra Singh to give the motor cycle to her husband Harbans Kishore Darbari and even if she was responsible to get entrustment of the motor cycle made to her husband she was certainly not responsible for its misappropriation when her husband refused to return it and if she was not responsible for misappropriation of the motor cycle she was rightly not summoned u/s 406. 5. 5. The case was also shown to be false because this motor cycle which was said to have been taken by Harbans Kishore Darbari on 4-6-1978 had been mortgaged with Swatantra Mohan Jain much before that and it was Swatantra Mohan Jain who produced this motor cycle at the police station and also produced papers to show that Rajendra Singh had already mortgaged this motor cycle with him. Subsequently, Rajendra Singh contended that though he had mortgaged this motor cycle with Swantra Mohan Jain he had later on redeemed it but he did not show this when he wanted custody of the motor cycle and also could not produce any receipt to show that he had paid the mortgage money and redeemed it. 6. Then, when the first complaint had been dismissed a second complaint on the same facts could not be filed. 7. For these reasons, therefore, such a complaint against the applicant would certainly be an abuse of the process of the Court. The learned Magistrate rightly declined to summon the applicant. His order must, therefore, be maintained and the order of the Additional Sessions Judge is set aside. 8. Both the revision and the application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure are, therefore, allowed. Revision allowed.