Judgment Rekha Kumari, J. 1. This is an application filed u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceeding of Paroo P.S. Case No. 19/2004 arising out of Complaint Case No. 173 of 2004 for the offences under Secs. 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur West. 2. Heard. 3. According to the F.I.R. there was an agreement between the complainant-informant and the petitioners for sale of four kathas of land at the rate of Rs. 16,000.00 per katha. The complainant paid Rs. 46,500.00 to the petitioners out of the consideration amount and promised to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 17,500.00 at the time of execution of the sale deed. It is further alleged that thereafter the complainant requested the petitioners several times for the execution of the sale deed but the petitioners always evaded. Subsequently, the complainant learnt that the petitioners had sold the land to one Lakshman Singh. He, hence, on 8.2.2004 went to the petitioners and asked for the refund of the amount paid, when the petitioners abused the complainant and also assaulted him with lathi and refused to return the amount. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the F.I.R. is based on a complaint filed by the informant in the court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate (West), Muzaffarpur and that prior to the filing of this complaint, the informant had filed another complaint alleging the same facts which was dismissed and as on the same facts second complaint is not maintainable, the F.I.R. based on the second complaint is also not competent. He further submitted that the F.I.R. has been registered under Secs. 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code but no offence under the aforesaid sections is made out on the basis of the allegations, and hence on this ground also, the F.I.R. is liable to be quashed. 5. As regards the fist submission of the learned Counsel it has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Jitender Singh and Ors. 5. As regards the fist submission of the learned Counsel it has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Jitender Singh and Ors. V/s. Ranjit Kaur 2001 Cr.L.J., 1015 (S.C.) that if the first complaint did not result in conviction or acquittal or even discharge of the accused and was dismissed for default and not on merit the second complaint on the same facts is no bar. In this case also from Annexure-3 it appears that as on 13.3.2004 the complainant-(informant) was not present in court, the first complaint (complaint case No. 35/04) was dismissed for default. The first complaint hence, was not decided on merit. So the second complaint was maintainable and an F.I.R. cannot be quashed on that ground for being based on the second complaint. 6. As regards the second submission of the learned Counsel, of course, if no offence is made out on the basis of the allegations made in the F.I.R. the same is a ground to quash an F.I.R. But in this case even if it be accepted, as argued by the learned Counsel, that no offence under Secs. 406 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out on the basis of the allegation, the complaint petition shows that the complainant had filed the complaint for taking action for the offences under Secs. 323, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and one of the allegations in the F.I.R. clearly is that the petitioners also assaulted the informant with lathi. Therefore, it cannot be said that the F.I.R. does not disclose any offence. Hence, on this ground also the F.I.R. cannot be quashed. 7. In the result, I do not find any merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed.