JUDGMENT Surinder Sarup, J.(Oral): The petitioner Sh. Baldev has filed this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Article 227 of the Constitution "of India for quashing the complaint No.746/6-2 F.I.R. No.214 of 1991- B.N, Banerjee v. Phillippe & Others Police Station Dharamshala under sections 336,419,420,448,500, 506,360, 363 and 551 read with section 34 IPC pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala. 2. The facts as stated in the petition are that the petitioner is a photographer of International repute. He has been representative of Sygma - French News Photo Agency - with the Headquarters at Paris and having branches all over the world including India. Hence in the profession for over forty years and has been accompanying various Prime Ministers of this Country as a part of their official encourage. The late Sh. Rajiv Gandhi especially selected the petitioner to accompany him as his official photographer on his five-nation (Egypt, Algeria, France, USA and Switzerland) foreign tour in June, 1985. For this tour the petitioner was given the status of a Secretary to the Government of India. . 3. It has further been alleged that the working on assignments for well-known international magazines, i.e. Life Time, News Week, New York Times and many others. Being the representative of Sygma (Paris based News Photo Agency) this petitioner has to remain involved in all national/international events taking place all over India. 4. In the month of May, 1991, the said News Agency Headquarters Paris requested the petitioner on the hope to visit International Sahaja School, Dharamshala. There are students from various nationalities including France, Germany, U.S.A. etc. studying in that School. The petitioner was instructed by the Sygma News Agency to visit the School and to have the photographs of the School as well as the French students studying there and showing their general life style, and including that of Master Yuann, a male child of French nationality. Accordingly, he visited the School on 17th May, 1991 and met the Principal Mr. Banerjee, respondent No. l herein and introduced himself as a news photographer, representative of Sygma, Paris, and sought cooperation to photograph the School complex and the students studying therein. The Principal escorted the petitioner and gladly introduced, the petitioner .6 various children and identified one French student Yuann besides other students of the School. 5. Banerjee, respondent No. l herein and introduced himself as a news photographer, representative of Sygma, Paris, and sought cooperation to photograph the School complex and the students studying therein. The Principal escorted the petitioner and gladly introduced, the petitioner .6 various children and identified one French student Yuann besides other students of the School. 5. The principal of the School also extended the hospitality by offering a lunch and dinner to the petitioner in the School compound. At Dharamshala the petitioner stayed in Hotel Bhagsu. 6. - The Principal requested the petitioner to send him some copies of the photographs which the petitioner took as the quality of photographs taken by the petitioner would be better. Accordingly, the petitioner requested his Head Office in Paris for sending some copies of the photographs taken at the School for onward transmission to the Principal-respondent No. l. On receipt of the photographs from the Head Office the petitioner sent them to the Principal-respondent No. l under registered cover on 30th May, 1991. The said photographs which were sent by the petitioner under a registered cover are filed herewith and marked as Annexure-I collectively and the photocopy of the postal receipt is marked as Annexure-II. 7. Prior to the petitioners visit many articles were published in French Magazines, in France about the boy Yuann Durand, French student of Class-II lodging and boarding in the International Shaja School, Talnoo, Dharamshala Cantt. The controversy arose on account of some case having been filed in Court in France by the grand parents of the child, Mrs. and Mr. Haline against his mother, the natural guardian, who had remarried herself after divorcing the father of the child with the allegation that the child had written a letter to his grand parents that he is not happy at Dharamshala and that he should be called back. It appears that the mother took the defence that she belongs to the sect of the Divine Mother "Her Holiness, Shri Mataji". That when the child was only seven years old, she dedicated him to the Divine Mother. This case got wide publicity in French newspapers and magazines and there were stories about the child, the sect and this School. A copy of such story published in Paris in newspaper "France Soir" dated 13.5.91 and 14.5.91 has been filed as Annexure-Ill. 8. That when the child was only seven years old, she dedicated him to the Divine Mother. This case got wide publicity in French newspapers and magazines and there were stories about the child, the sect and this School. A copy of such story published in Paris in newspaper "France Soir" dated 13.5.91 and 14.5.91 has been filed as Annexure-Ill. 8. That Sygma Paris for whom the p petitioner works in India as a Photographer sent Telex message to him on 14th, 15th and 18th May,. 1.99.1 Asking him to go to Dharamshala and send the photographs of the child and the School. Photo copies of the messages received by him on the said dates from Sygma have been filed and marked as Annexure-IV collectively. Even the route to reach Dharamshala and the School was given to the petitioner by the. Sygma Headquarters. , 9. Accordingly, he visited the school on 17th May, 1991 with the permission of the complainant and introduced himself. He showed his identity card and disclosed the purpose of the visit to the School. The complainant happily received him and took him inside the school campus and gladly introduced him to various children and identified the French student, Yuann. The petitioner with the permission of the complainant took the photographs of Master Yuann besides other students and the staff of the school as is evident from Annexure-1 collectively. The petitioner docs not know French and he did not talk even a word to Master Yuann. 10. The complainant on his own invited the petitioner to stay for dinner which the petitioner accepted and he had not only with the complainant but with the entire staff of the school. 11. On his return the petitioner sent the Dharamshala Coverage (10 Rolls as it is without processes the films in India through AIR France Express Airline Service) and he also sent a telex message on 20th may, 1991 to send a set of some good prints of Dharamshala school which he promised to give to the Principal of the School. The complainant for his help and cooperation. The photocopies of telex message dated 18th May, 1991 and 20thMay; 1991 are filed herewith and marked-as Annexure V and VI respectively. As soon as he received the photographs, he sent the same to the complainant under a registered cover on 30th May,1991 vide Annexure-II. 12. The complainant for his help and cooperation. The photocopies of telex message dated 18th May, 1991 and 20thMay; 1991 are filed herewith and marked-as Annexure V and VI respectively. As soon as he received the photographs, he sent the same to the complainant under a registered cover on 30th May,1991 vide Annexure-II. 12. The petitioner has no concern whatsoever with any of the co- accused. Nos. 1,3,4 and 5 alleged in the complaint. They belong to different organisations and news agencies. If they visited and published their articles in their magazines or newspapers, they have done it independently and the petitioner has nothing to do with that. ... 13. It so happened that the grand parents of child won the case in France and the child was called back to France sometime in the last week of May. 1992. 14. The complainant just to retaliate filed a false complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharamshala against the petitioner and four others under the aforesaid sections on 20.6.1991 on which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the following order on this complaint. "Present Counsel with complainant. Forwarded to SHO Dharamshala for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Sd/-CJM 20.6.91." A true copy of the said complaint has been filed as Annexure-VII. 15. Consequently on 25th June,1991 an FIR No.214 of 1991 under the aforesaid sections was registered at Police Station, Dharamshala. The petitioner came to know on 23.9.1991 that some officials of the Himachal Pradesh Police are searching for few journalists who had covered the aforesaid school on different dates including the petitioner, it may also be stated that Sygma for whom the petitioner is working as a news photo agency was not supplying articles vide Annexure-VIII. It further appears that on 5.11.1991 the Investigating Officer submitted a final report in the case under section 173 Cr.P.C. A true copy thereof has been filed as Annexure-IX. 16. It further appears that the complainant filed some protest petition against the said report upon which respondent No.3 vide order dated 1.6.1992 returned the file to the Superintendent of Police, Kangra District at Dharamshala for re-investigation and report within a month. A true copy of the said order dated 1.6.92 has been filed as Annexure-X. 17. On 11.6.1992, respondent No.3 sent a letter to the Superintendent of-Police a true copy whereof is filed as Annexure-XI. A true copy of the said order dated 1.6.92 has been filed as Annexure-X. 17. On 11.6.1992, respondent No.3 sent a letter to the Superintendent of-Police a true copy whereof is filed as Annexure-XI. According, the case was reinvestigated and the Superintendent of Police was also of the opinion that the petitioner has committed no offence and that there is no substance in the case and hence again submitted a final report. Accordingly, the final report was again submitted on 11.7.1992. A true copy of which is Annexure-XII. 18. It further appears that again a protest petition was filed before the respondent No.3 whereupon the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the case under section 190 (IB) (B) Cr.P.C. under sections 336, 419, 420,448, 500, 5Qfc 360, 363, 511 read with section 34 IPC vide order dated 29.10.1992. A true copy of which is Annexure-XIII. 19. The petitioner has written no article either on the boy or the school. and no such article has been published in any Magazine. The photographs have not been published any where to die best of his knowledge. The complainant does not mention photographics. He is a highly acclaimed photographer and has been appointed as a Photographer to late Prime Minister Shri Rajiv Gandhi and was holding rank of Secretary to the Govt. of India. Copy of the order issued by the Government of India in this regard is Annexure-XIV. 20. It is pertinent to mention that Sygma was not a party to the suit filed by Sahaj Yog in Paris. The said suit was dismissed by the Court in France vide Annexure-XV. In para-15 of the complaint, it is alleged in respect of the petitioner that he visited the school premises and stated that he was a member of the French Government. This fact is completely and palpably false inasmuch as in the complaint the petitioners correct designation as an Agent of Sygma, with correct address was given. This was because he had correctly disclosed his identity to the complainant and of are his business card to him, 21. In support of his case, the petitioner has annexed a copy of judgment of this Court delivered by a Division Bench, wherein an identical case of co-accused Phillippe Gelie was considered under section 482 Cr.P.C. and the complaint against the said petitioner was quashed. In support of his case, the petitioner has annexed a copy of judgment of this Court delivered by a Division Bench, wherein an identical case of co-accused Phillippe Gelie was considered under section 482 Cr.P.C. and the complaint against the said petitioner was quashed. According to the petitioner that judgment considered in depth the entire facts and circum stances of the case as also the material on the record, thereafter first pronouncement on the maintainability of the petition was made, holding the petition under section .482 Cr. P.C. to be maintainable. Then the material was considered and the prosecution ordered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was found to be wholly unwarranted and untenable and an abuse of the due process of law. 22. Earlier, according to the petitioner, a Single Bench pronouncement of Mr. Justice D.P. Sood (in Cr. M.P. (M) No 305/92) on the issue of enter-tainability of this kind of petition by the petitioner was considered by the Division Bench on a specific reference by the Honble Chief Justice. Copy where of is Annexure-XVI. The said Single Bench judgment was, thereafter, overruled by the Division Bench in terms of the above cited judgment in Cr.M.P. (M) No.665/95. The relevant portion of the Division Bench judgment in this regard has been reproduced in para-13 of the petition. 23. In the petitioners case on production relevant portion of the Division Bench judgment and after analysing the same post part of the latter portion of the petition has been taken up by that. 24. The complainant has challenged, inter alia, on the ground that a similar petition in same complaint by one of the accused, namely, Phillipe Gelie has been quashed by the Division Bench of this Court. There being a common complaint against all the co-accused against Phillipe Gelie and the petitioner with identical allegations, therefore, the present petition should also be allowed and the complaint taken to be quashed qua the petitioner; that the impugned prosecution of the petitioner is s severe violation of his personal liberty and movement and is thus volatile of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; that a bars reading of the complaint disclose? no offence of the petitioner. 25. Hence, the petition with a prayer to quash the complaint also.. The petition is supported by an affidavit of the petitioner I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sh. no offence of the petitioner. 25. Hence, the petition with a prayer to quash the complaint also.. The petition is supported by an affidavit of the petitioner I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sh. Ramakant Sharma, Sh. Jagdish Vats, Advocate representing the complainant respondent No. 1 and Sh. V.K. Verma, learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State-respondent No. 2. It appears that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has been made a respondent wrongly and erroneously as a Judicial Officer whose orders are challenged or Courts are not generally made parties in such type of cases unless there are specific allegations of a personal nature etc. against them. 26. At the outset, it may be stated that earlier the petitioner had filed a similar petition being Cr. M.P. (M) No.1305/92 along with other co-accused which was dismissed by Mr. Justice D.P. Sood, J. (since retired) by a detailed and reasoned order dated 27-12- 1994. A copy of that order has been annexed with this petition. The cooperative part of that order has been reproduced in the interim order passed by this Court on 6.3.1997 which is on the record. Suffice it to say that the earlier petition for quashing the complaint etc. filed by the petitioner referred to above, was dismissed on the short ground that a Bench of this Court was not inclined to exercise inherent power at that stage since all the accused persons have opportunity to approach and advance submissions before the learned Magistrate that the materials on record do not call for framing charges against them. It was further held that interim relief can be given by a subordinate authority normally higher authorities should not exercise their power to give them some relief. It was further held in that case that all the Criminal Misc. Petitions including this filed by the petitioner, have no merit at that stage and are dismissed giving liberty to accused persons to move the trial Court at appropriate stage for bringing an end to the trial. It was further made clear that dismissal of these petitions should not be taken as a ground by the trial Court to refuse to examine the Submissions if otherwise permissible under law as the Bench of this Court at that time had not examined the question on merits. 27. It was further made clear that dismissal of these petitions should not be taken as a ground by the trial Court to refuse to examine the Submissions if otherwise permissible under law as the Bench of this Court at that time had not examined the question on merits. 27. Subsequently) one Phillippe Gelie, being one of the co-accused in the same case filed Cr.M. (M) No.656 of 1995. The same was decided on 28.11.1995, by the Division Bench of this Court which by a detailed and reasoned order sic into 23 pages allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in the complainants case referred to above, in which the petitioner is one of the accused. 28. Irrespective of the merits or the reasons which weighed with the Division Bench in quashing the complaint in that case, the fact still remains that an earlier petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by a Single Bench of this Court as referred to above. Prima facie this Court is of the view that entertaining the revision petition and deciding it on merits would tantamount to review of the earlier orders passed by Mr. Justice D.P. Sood, (since retired). However, the learned counsel for. the petitioner has cited before me the case of Dr. AM. Berry v. Ravi Arora & Ors,, (1991 (2) C.L.R. 656. In that judgment of the Delhi High Court, it was held that rejection of earlier application for quashing of criminal proceedings on the ground of absence of prima facie case is no bar for filing another application on the same ground as it does not amount to review or revision of the earlier order. A reported judgment of the Apex Court, namely, Supld. and Remembrancer, West Bengal v. Mohan Singh (AIR 1975 S.C. 1002). Was referred to and relied on by the Delhi High Court in the case of Dr. A.M. Berry (supra). 29. This being the legal position, the Court is bound by the judgment of the Apex Court, though it may not agree with the ratio of the judgment of the Delhi High Court referred to above. Moreover, by a subsequent decision of the Division Bench rendered in. Cr. M.P. (M) No.656/95 dated 28.11.1995, a similar petition filed by one of the accused, namely, Phillippe Gelie has been allowed and the same Complaint Case No.746/6-1 vide FIR No/214 of 1991 has been quashed. Moreover, by a subsequent decision of the Division Bench rendered in. Cr. M.P. (M) No.656/95 dated 28.11.1995, a similar petition filed by one of the accused, namely, Phillippe Gelie has been allowed and the same Complaint Case No.746/6-1 vide FIR No/214 of 1991 has been quashed. This impliedly has the effect of over-ruling order/judgment of Mr. Justice D.P. Sood, Judge (since retired) and referred" to above whereby the earlier petition filed by that very complainant has been dismissed. 30. The legal position that emerges is thus that notwithstanding the dismissal of an earlier petition on same facts for quashing the complaint at the instance of the petitioner; the subsequent petition i.e. the petition fried by him for quashing the said complaint, is not barred under the law for the reasons already slated above. It also stands to reason that the complaint having been quashed at the instance of one of the accused in this case, it would be deemed to have been quashed for a! practical purposes and it would not be open to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala to proceed against other accused when the complaint has already been quashed as being illegal as also on the ground that there is no material on the record to held guilty sic of the petitioners for the alleged offence. In other words, the complaint qua the present petitioner, namely, Sh. Baldev also stands quashed and only a formal order is to be passed in the present petition to give effect to the judgment of the Division Bench. 31. For the reasons recorded above, this petition succeeds and is allowed. Consequently, Complaint Case No.746/6-2 registered vide FIRNo.214 of 1991pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala and ail the proceedings taken subsequent thereto by that Court are hereby quashed