JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. filed by the accused petitioner against the order taking cognizance against them for offence under Sec. 4 of the Dowry Act, 1961 by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Deeg on 18th June, 1987. 2. The chequerred history and the facts leading to this case are that complainant non-petitioner Budh Prakash Goyal filed a criminal complaint on 27th June. 1984 before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Deeg against six persons which includes the five petitioners and one Sohan Lal. since dead. The allegations made in the complaint are that complainant non-petitioner was in search of a son-in-law for his daughter Prabha and having learnt that accused-petitioner Ashok Kumar Agrawal son of deceased Sohan Lal is an eligible bachelor approached Shri Sohan Lal with an offer. The proposal was accepted after the parties found out the antecedents of the relations and the boy and girl were interviewed by the members of the families of the boy and girl. On 30th January, 1983. the preliminary ceremony known as betrothal was done. None-petitioner gave some sweets and fruits to the boy along with a sum of Rs. 100/- and a gold coin with coconut and Rs. 21/- Per head were given to other relations. It is mentioned in the complaint that it was made clear that marriage will be performed according to Sanatan Dharm Hindu rites and no dowry shall be given to the bridegroom and his family. The date of marriage was also fixed as 16th March, 1983 and earlier to that on 10th March, 1983 the Lagan was to be sent. Non-petitioner got the booking of the Dharmshala and made all other arrangements for the marriage. Complainant received a letter from Shri Sohan Lal Agrawal and others for coming to Mathura and, therefore, be went to Mathura on 20th Feb., 1983 along with Shri Daya Ram Gupta and Mahaveer Prasad Jain. There it is alleged that accused No. 1 to 6 consulted the ladies and thereafter, Sohan Lal handed over a list in his own handwriting for demand of dowry wherein a long list of articles including a Refrigerator, sofa set. Dinner set, gold ornaments inter alia others with Rs. 31,000/- in cash were demanded as dowry. Accused Nos. There it is alleged that accused No. 1 to 6 consulted the ladies and thereafter, Sohan Lal handed over a list in his own handwriting for demand of dowry wherein a long list of articles including a Refrigerator, sofa set. Dinner set, gold ornaments inter alia others with Rs. 31,000/- in cash were demanded as dowry. Accused Nos. 1 to 6 were requested repeatedly by complainant non-petitioner that they should not insist on giving dowry as it is not possible for him but they did not accept his request and he came back from Mathura. Thereafter in the last week of February, the accused No. 1 to 6 wrote the invitation for marriage known as Pili Chithi, the envelop of which was possibly addressed by Shri Om Prakash. Accused persons, it is alleged, came to Deeg again on 6th March, 1983 and repeated their demand and in-case of non-fulfilment threatened for breaking the engagement. Complainant, it is alleged, called various important persons of the town including several Advocates and requested the accused-persons to keep up his reputation but they refused to do so and the prospective merital ties were broken. The accused are alleged to have told that they are being offered lakhs of rupees as the boy is earning about Rs. 2,000/- p.m. It is further alleged that the accused persons also did not return the money and the gold ring etc. which was given in betrothan and hence the complainant was filed On receipt of this complaint, the learned Magistrate held an inquiry under Sec. 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and vide order dated 21st March, 1984 took cognizance of the offence under Sec. 4 of the Dowry Act against accused Sohan Lal and Ashok Kumar and issued process against them. Complainant aggrieved by this order preferred a revision petition before Additional Sessions Judge Deeg and the accused Sohan Lal and Ashok Kumar also aggrieved by this older filed a petition under Sec. 482 Cr P.C. before this Court. The petition under Sec. 482 Cr. P.C was registered as S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 10/1984 which was admitted after show cause notice to the complainant on 4.1.1985. This petition came up for hearing before my brother Judge Hon'ble G.K. Sharma J. and was allowed on 28th March, 1985. The petition under Sec. 482 Cr. P.C was registered as S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 10/1984 which was admitted after show cause notice to the complainant on 4.1.1985. This petition came up for hearing before my brother Judge Hon'ble G.K. Sharma J. and was allowed on 28th March, 1985. It is pertinent to mention here that revision petition was filed only by Ashok Kumar Agrawal since Sohan Lal Agrawal had already expired and the proceedings against him automatically abated. It is also pertinent to mention here that after taking the cognizance the accused had moved an application before the learned Magistrate on 16.6.84 wherein he had challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Court which application was refused by learned Magistrate on 1.6.84. This order too was set aside by Hon'ble Sharma J. by the same order. Thus, the complaint filed by the complainant stood dismissed on 28.3.85. After this order when the file went back to the trial Court, the trial Court consigned the complaint to record but as the revision petition filed by the complainant non-petitioner Budh Prakash before Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg was pending, the record was remitted to his court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg despite the fact that judgment of Hon'ble Sharma J. was before him, yet directed a further inquiry into the matter against the other accused persons by accepting the revision petition against the order which stood set aside by the order of this Court. Thus, the record went back to the Court of learned Magistrate who recorded the statement of several other witnesses under Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. and therefore took, cognizance of the offence under Sec. 4 of the Dowry Act against all the five accused persons include Ashok Kumar against whom the order of cognizance has, on merits, been quashed by this Court. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed this petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. wherein the notice was given to the complainant-non-petitioner, Budh Prakash. 3. It would not be out of place to mention here that the petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. filed by Ashok Kumar came up for hearing before Hon'ble Sharma J. at that time also Budh Prakash was represented by his counsel Shri N.C. Mittal. 4. Learmd counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance is absolutely illegal and is in violation of the settled principles of natural justice. 4. Learmd counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance is absolutely illegal and is in violation of the settled principles of natural justice. It is submitted that even legally no proceedings could have been continued and impugned order could not be passed against Ashok Kumar in whose favour this Court has held on merits that he had neither demanded the dowry nor had committed any offence under the Act. It is further submitted that it was improper on the part of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to have heard the revision petition on merits after the application under Sec. 482 Cr. P.C. had been disposed of by this Court. The propriety demanded that he should have referred the matter to this Court if at all he was of the opinion that the matter required a further inquiry. He had no jurisdiction express or implied to have entertained a petition like the one after the judgment of this Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that nothing more can be contemptuous for a Magistrate then to have passed the impugned order. It is further submitted that offence has not been committed even according to the complaint within the territorial jurisdiction of the Rajasthan Courts and neither the Magistrate nor the learned Additional Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to entertain or a continue inquiry in Rajasthan. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has supported the judgments of the learned Sessions Judge as well as learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate and has submitted that there is over whelming evidence to show that dowry was demanded and an offence under Sec. 4 has been committed by all the accused persons. 6. I have perused the order of the learned Magistrate dated 18th June, 1987 as also the order of the Additional Sessions Judge who had passed the order remaining the case for further inquiry before the learned Magistrate. 7. Before I come on the merits of the case and comment upon the impugned order, I deem it proper to say a word about the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge which is now not before me as the same was not challenged before this Court possibly because accused were not represented before him and it was an ex-party order against Sunahari Lal. Om Prakash, Manohar Lal and Shyam Sunder as the presence has not been recorded in the judgment of any counsel on behalf of the accused-persons. It is borne out from the order dated 23rd December, 1985 that he was in full knowledge of the judgment delivered by Hon'ble G.K. Sharma J. and he had made a mention of the same. It is extremely regrettable that though the fact was in his knowledge and submission advanced even by the complainant, he did not assign the reason for his circumventing the order passed by Hon'ble Sharma J. From para No. 4 onwards, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dealt with the case and it is not borne out that he even tried to go through the reasonings given by Hon'ble Sharma J. He had been not only careless in not looking into the order but it appears that he has deliberately not found it convenient to refer to the same and mechanically directed a further inquiry in respect of accused No. 3 to 6. One of the reasons assigned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was that since the order dated 21.3.84 was silent about not taking the cognizance in his opinion the matter required further inquiry in respect of other accused-persons. This is reading the order in between lines. When there are several persons and some of them have been summoned, it is, presumed that the Magistrate has thought it proper to issue process to them only at that stage of inquiry. Order under Sec. 203 Cr.P.C. are not passed in piece meals and more so the cognizance of an offence is not against the offender. Had the further evidence come there would have been no bar for the Magistrate to have impleaded other persons also as accused but to say that he kept the inquiry opened under Sec. 204 Cr.P.C. is a erroneous approach given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In the face of the order of the Hon'ble G.K. Sharma J. if the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is seen, lesser the said better it is. I can only say that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the circumstances has not left a happy impression on my mind. 8. Coming to the impugned order, the situation is worst. I can only say that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the circumstances has not left a happy impression on my mind. 8. Coming to the impugned order, the situation is worst. The learned Magistrate had the audicity to summon an accused, the cognizance against whom had been quashed by a detailed judgment by Hon'ble G. K. Sharma J. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also while remanding the case, at least did not remand it for further inquiry qua accused Ashok Kumar, but the learned Additional Sessions Judges has most contemptuously neglected the order of this Court though it was in file yet issued process. Suffice it to mention that decision of this Court was binding on him at all subsequent stages in the same proceedings. A reference in this respect be made to State of Rajasthan v. Tara Chand ( 1974 (3) SCC 72 ) wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court had categorically stated that decision of the High Court in revision is binding on the same High Court at a subsequent stage of proceedings. In the instant case even the Magistrate did not consider it proper to follow the decision of this Court which was binding on him but as by taking an erroneous view of the law that the same is not hit by Sec. 300 Cr.P.C. took the cognizance of the offence against Ashok Kumar. Regarding the other accused persons it is essential that while taking cognizance the case as set out in the complaint has to be gone into rather than the case put up by the witness subsequent to remand by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The statement of witnesses are always in support of the allegations made in the complaint. No specific overact has been mentioned against the accused persons in the complaint. The complainant after filing the complaint had examined himself on 8-2-1984 and thereafter took time for examining other witnesses. He examined Suresh Chand on 14-2-84 and closed his evidence as is borne out from the order-sheet. He had decided to argue the case for cognizance and after seeking three adjournments on 21st March, 1984, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sec. 4 of the Dowry Act and issued process against Sohan Lal and Ashok Kumar hence, it was a case of deemed refusal of the complaint under Sec. 203 Cr. He had decided to argue the case for cognizance and after seeking three adjournments on 21st March, 1984, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sec. 4 of the Dowry Act and issued process against Sohan Lal and Ashok Kumar hence, it was a case of deemed refusal of the complaint under Sec. 203 Cr. P. C. against the accused-persons. Obviously any statement recorded thereafter even on the remand of the case is calculated and aimed it improving the case as set out in the complaint and the story given by the complainant himself in his earlier statement. To test the overact suffice it to mention that in the complaint the complainant as stated that it was Sohan Lal in whose hand writing the list was prepared and handed over to him where the demand of dowry was made but when the evidence was led subsequent to remand the very first witness examined viz., Jag Mohan Prasad stated that in his presence Om Prakash wrote down the list and handed it over to Budh Prakash. This change of statement his obviously been done because Sohan Lal was no more and had already expired. This story of substituting the accused cannot be permitted in a criminal case like the one where gaps have been left in the complaint to be filled in at the convenience of the witnesses at a subsequent stage. There may be truth that there might have been some disputes between the parties may be on demand of dowry or otherwise but suspicion cannot take the place of proof. It has been held time and again by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that there is a long distance to travel between may be true and must be true and when the scope is left to fill in the gaps in a second inquiry like the one,it would not be proper to summon the accused persons particularly in face of the findings given by my brother Judge Hon'ble G.K. Sharma J. in earlier proceedings. On the question I have dealt above that when a first complaint is dismissed after considering the evidence, a second complaint or second set of evidence or the same set is an abuse of the process of the Court. On the question I have dealt above that when a first complaint is dismissed after considering the evidence, a second complaint or second set of evidence or the same set is an abuse of the process of the Court. I have perused the entire record and in the circumstances of the case I feel that to issue process to the accused in this case is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and the learned Magistrate not only erred but misdirected himself in dealing with the judgment of the High Court in a manner unwarranted by a competent judicial officer. Such tendency has to be seriously deprecated. 9. The result is that the petition is allowed and the proceedings are quashed.Petition allowed. *******