Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. A complaint was filed by the respondent against the petitioner on November 20, 1993, under Sections 448/427/34/504/506 I.P.C. On February 7, 1994, while it was listed for preliminary evidence, it appears that the respondent (complainant) did not appear and, therefore, the same was dismissed for his non-appearance. The respondent thereafter filed another complaint on the very next date, i.e. on February 8, 1994, against the petitioner on identical allegations, alleging committal of offenses by the petitioner punishable under the same provisions of the penal law. It is asserted by the petitioner that the evidence in this complaint was recorded on January 28, 1995. However, the aforementioned second complaint too was dismissed due to non-appearance of the complainant on November 11, 1995. The dismissal of the two complaints, however, did not deter the respondent from harasing the petitioner, He came out with yet another complaint on 16.11,1995 (Annexure P-1), which too was based upon the same facts and alleging the committal (c)f offences by the petitioner under the same provisions of the penal law. In the third complaint, the respondent also moved an application for the transfer of the evidence which he had led in the second complaint. His request was accepted by the learned Magistrate and consequently the evidence which the complainant had produced in the second complaint was taken on record as if the same had been produced in the third complaint. Relying upon that evidence, the petitioner was summoned vide order dated 13.12.1995. Aggrieved at the summoning order, the petitioner approached the Sessions Court at Gurgaon, by filing a Criminal Revision Petition, which was partly allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide his judgment and order dated August 22, 1998. Learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the evidence led by the respondent in the second complaint could not have been borrowed and taken on record as if it was produced in the third complaint. The matter was, however, sent back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to conduct further enquiry into the complaint and pass appropriate orders. The petitioner having remained dissatisfied with the part-acceptance of her revision petition, has approached this Court. 2. I have heard Sh. R.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Sh. Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 3. The primary contention of Sh. The petitioner having remained dissatisfied with the part-acceptance of her revision petition, has approached this Court. 2. I have heard Sh. R.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Sh. Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 3. The primary contention of Sh. Jain is that the very filing of the third complaint by the respondent and entertainment thereof by the Courts below amounts to abuse of process of law inasmuch as two complaints filed by the respondent on identical allegations have already been dismissed for non-prosecution and upon the dismissal of these complaints, the petitioner stood acquitted of the charges, therefore, the third complaint is not maintainable. In support of his contention he has relied upon Bhagat Ram, A.S.I, v. State of Punjab and Anr., 1987(2) C.L.R, 329, Sham Lal v. State of Punjab 1996 (3) R.C.R. 193 and Ranjit Singh v. Raghbir Singh, 1998(3) R.C.R. 258. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contends that since none of the complaints were decided on merits, the respondent-complainant is entitled to file the third complaint inasmuch as the offence, if actually committed by the petitioner, cannot be condoned merely on the dismissal of the previous complaints for non-prosecution. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the issue as to whether after dismissal of the previous complaint, be that may due to non-appearance and/or non-prosecution, the subsequent complaint on the same allegations is maintainable or not, is no longer res-integra and has been answered by this Court on more than one occasion in favour of the accused like the petitioner in the instant case, after holding that with the dismissal of the earlier complaint, the subsequent complaint on the same allegations would amount to abuse of process of Court, and as such the subsequent complaint is not maintainable. 5. In view of the settled proposition of law, referred to above, this petition is allowed, the order dated August 22, 1998 (Annexure P-l) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, is modified and while accepting the claim of the petitioner in toto, the third complaint filed by the respondent is quashed. As a necessary corollary, the subsequent proceedings in the said complaint stand automatically evaporated. No order as to costs.