JUDGMENT 1. - This is petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR No. 7/96 pending at the Police Station Roopbas for offence under sections 323, 341 & 379 IPC and under section 3 of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (prevention of Atrocities) Act. 4 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 3. It will be pertinent to mention the facts of the case in short Phusinya complainant filed a complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roopbas on 7.10.95 against petitioner as well as some other persons for the offence Under section 323, 341 & 379 IPC and Under section 3 of Scheduled caste/Scheduled Tribe (prevention of Atrocities) Act. The same was forwarded by learned magistrate under section 156(3) Cr.PC. to the Police Station Roopbas where an FIR No. 318/95 was chalked out on 19.10.95. After due investigation challan was presented against Bachchu Singh for the offence under section 323 & 341 IPC only and against rest of the accused persons, the police did not find any case. Chargesheet No. 202/95 was submitted in the court only against Bachusingh. The petitioner neither filed any protest petition nor any complaint nor any objection was raised before the learned magistrate. Instead he submitted an complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate Roopbas on 29.11.95 on the same facts. Learned Magistrate again forwarded this complaint under section 156(3) Cr.PC. to the Police Station Roopbas where FIR 7/96 was registered for the offence under section 323, 341 & 379 as well as 3 of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that second FIR i.e. FIR No. 7/96 should be quashed on the ground that second FIR on the same facts could not be filed and investigated. He submitted that when police had once investigated the matter and did not find the case against the petitioner and others and submitted challan only against Bachusingh, the complainant should have either submitted protest petition before the learned Magistrate or should have taken other steps as provided under Code of Criminal Procedure. He could not have misused the process of court by compelling the investigating agency to investigate the same case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that Smt. Vidhyadevi is the Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Bargha where the petitioner and Nihal Singh are the Panchas. He could not have misused the process of court by compelling the investigating agency to investigate the same case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that Smt. Vidhyadevi is the Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Bargha where the petitioner and Nihal Singh are the Panchas. They have some grievance regarding the construction of Panchayat Bhawan. In order to settle this score, another FIR was lodged which is not allowed to stand under the provisions of law. He was cited 1996 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 245 (Harbanshlal & ors v. State of Rajasthan & ors) , in which second FIR was quashed because the first FIR was pending and it was observed that no subsequent FIR could be lodged on same facts. 4. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor has tried to support the second FIR. In my view if the second FIR is allowed to exist it is misuse of process of law because the police had once investigated the matter and come to conclusion that no case was made out against the persons against whom challan was not filed. The complainant could have raised objections before the learned Magistrate. In challan on the FIR submitted against Bachchusingh, the complainant could have very well made an application before the learned Magistrate to summon the rest of the accused persons as per the provisions of section 319 Cr.RC. or other provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. Instead, it appears that for reason best known to him he, in order to harass the petitioner submitted the second complaint on the basis of which FIR No. 7/96 was registered at the police station, Roopbas. This second FIR cannot be allowed to exist. This court has inherent powers under section 482 Cr.RC. to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of process of law of any court or to secure the ends of justice. I am of the view that it will be in the interest of justice to quash the FIR No. 7/96 Police Station, Roopbas. The petition is allowed and FIR No. 7/96 PS Roopbas is hereby quashed.> Petition allowed. *******