Order Heard the parties. The instant application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings pending against them in the Court of Smt. Sangeeta Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi vide Complaint Case No. 43 of 2003 and also the order dated 24.3.2003 passed by the trial court whereby summons were issued against the petitioners directing them to appear and face trial for the offences under Sections 323 and 379 I.P.C. in respect of the cognizance was earlier taken. 2. The background circumstances relating to the case is that a complaint was filed by the opposite party no. 2, Zohra Khatoon against the present petitioners before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi which was registered as Complaint Case No. 43 of 2003 alleging, inter alia, that the complainant's marriage with accused no.1, Jamil Akhtar was solemnized according to Muslim Law on 5.5.1992. In course of their co-habitation two children were born to the complainant. It is alleged that in course of time the husband, namely, Jamil Akhtar (petitioner no.1), who was employed as a clerk at CIP Kanke Ranchi, had developed extra marital relation with the petitioner no.2, Olga Pentoni, a staff nurse working at the same hospital and on protest made by the complainant, the husband and the said lady (petitioner no.2) used to subject her to ill-treatment including physical assault. It is also alleged that the petitioner no.1, who is a mediator used to misguide the complainant's husband, and he had snatched away the gold chain from the complainant. It is further alleged that a piece of land measuring 4 decimals which the complainant had purchased and over which she had constructed house with financial aid extended by her father, was fraudulently sold away by her husband, Jamil Akhtar. The learned Magistrate to whom the case was transferred by the Chief Judicial Magistrate for inquiry and disposal under Section 192(2) Cr.P.C., conducted an inquiry and by the order impugned, had recorded his finding that a prima facie• case for the offences under Sections 406/323/379 I.P.C. has been made out against the husband of the complainant (accused no.1) and for the offences under Sections 323/379 I.P.C. against accused no.2 and against accused no. 3 both of whom are the present petitioners. 3. 3 both of whom are the present petitioners. 3. The petitioners have assailed the aforesaid order primarily on the ground that the order has been passed by the learned Magistrate without jurisdiction and without application of judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and that complaint was filed by the opposite party no.2/complainant by suppressing material facts. 4. Mrs. Manjusri Patra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners explains that prior to the filing of the instant application, the same complainant had 1iled a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi on 11.10.2002 which was registered as Complaint Case No. 664 of 2002 for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 498A, 307, 341, 467, 468, 342, 323 and 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the same set of accused persons, namely, husband of the complainant and the present petitioners and after conducting an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate before whom the case was transferred, had dismissed the complaint by observing that no prima facie case is made out for any offence against the accused persons. The same complainant had earlier filed an F.I.R. which was registered as Jagarnathpur P. S. Case No. 111 of 2002 which was referred to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate and registered as G.R. No. 2875 of 2002 for the offences under Section 498A, 323, 420 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry of Prohibition Act. The petitioners had filed a petition for quashing the entire criminal proceedings arising out of F.I.R. and after hearing both the parties in detail, this Court vide its order dated 28.4.2004 passed in Cr. M. P. No. 446 of 2003, had quashed the entire criminal proceedings. Yet again the same complainant on identical allegations had filed another complaint against the present petitioners and her husband which was registered as complaint case no. 715 of 2002 for the offences under Section 497 I.P.C. in which she had made the same allegations of her husband maintaining extra marital relation with the petitioner no. 2. After considering the statement of the complainant and her three witnesses, the learned Magistrate before whom the case was transferred for inquiry and disposal, had dismissed the complaint vide order dated 23.12.2002. 2. After considering the statement of the complainant and her three witnesses, the learned Magistrate before whom the case was transferred for inquiry and disposal, had dismissed the complaint vide order dated 23.12.2002. The present complaint, yet another of its kind, has been filed against the same set of accused persons including the present petitioners on the same allegations which was earlier raised but this time in course of inquiry on examining the same set of witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. the learned court below proceeded to record its finding that a prima facie against the petitioners for the aforementioned offences is made out. Learned counsel explains that the present complaint as filed by the complainant on the same allegations against the same accused persons is entirely a misuse of the process of the court since the earlier complaint on the same facts was dismissed by the competent court. Finding fault with the observations recorded by the learned court below in the impugned order, learned counsel submits that though a second complaint on the same facts is not barred under the law, but the principle of law in this context has been misconceived by the learned Magistrate. It is explained that the principle of law is that though second complaint is not a bar but it is permissible only under exceptional circumstances and in the present case there exists no exceptional circumstance to enable the learned court below to entertain second complaint on the same facts. Learned lawyer in support of her contention to the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Poonam Chand Jain & Anr:, vs. Fazru reported in 2005(1) East Cr. C. 118 (SC). 5. The complainant/opposite party no.2 has appeared through her lawyer and has filed her counter affidavit. Mr. M. S. Anwar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 while rejecting the entire claims and grounds advanced by the petitioners, contends that the submissions as also the grounds advanced by the petitioners are thoroughly misleading and in fact there is no reliable ground on the basis of which the petitioners' claim for quashing the entire criminal proceedings pending against them can be entertained. 2 while rejecting the entire claims and grounds advanced by the petitioners, contends that the submissions as also the grounds advanced by the petitioners are thoroughly misleading and in fact there is no reliable ground on the basis of which the petitioners' claim for quashing the entire criminal proceedings pending against them can be entertained. Learned counsel explains that against the same impugned order and for the same relief as prayed for by the petitioners in the instant application, the accused no.1, namely, the husband of the complainant had preferred criminal miscellaneous petition in this Court vide Cr. M. P. No. 746 of 2003, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 1.8.2003 with a liberty to raise all the points before the court below at the time of framing charge. Learned counsel explains further that the earlier complaint petition vide Complaint Case No. 664 of 2002 was not dismissed on merits. Rather, it was dismissed for default. It is explained further that the case registered on the basis of the complaint filed by opposite party no. 2, as complaint case No. 715 of 2002 though filed against the husband, Jamil Akhtar and the accused no. 3 (petitioner no. 2) was for a totally different offence under Section 497 I.P.C. and the same has got no bearing with the facts and allegations of the present complaint petition. Learned counsel adds further that even the aforesaid complaint case No. 664 of 2002 was not dismissed on merits, but was dismissed for default. Learned counsel adds further that in the present complaint case, the learned court below had applied his judicial mind to the allegations in the complaint petition as well as statements of the complainant and her witnesses recorded on solemn affirmation and on considering the entire materials available, had recorded its satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the present petitioners for the offence under Sections 323 and 379 LPC. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even though the earlier complaints were dismissed for default, but the affect of such dismissal is that the case was finally disposed of. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even though the earlier complaints were dismissed for default, but the affect of such dismissal is that the case was finally disposed of. Learned counsel maintains that the same allegations on the same cause of action and against the same set of accused persons was earlier made in the F.I.R. registered as Jagarnathpur P. S. Case No. 111 of 2002, but the entire criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R. was quashed by the order of this Court and therefore the present complaint on the same allegations cannot be entertained in absence of any plea of exceptional circumstance. 7. On perusal of the impugned order dated 24.3.2005 passed by learned court below in the present complaint petition, it appears that the learned court below had taken note of fact that earlier the same complainant had filed a complaint for the offence under Section 497 I.P.C. against her husband and the accused no. 3, namely, the present petitioner no. 2 herein and also, that the earlier complaint was dismissed by the court. The learned Magistrate while relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2003(4) Eastern Cri. Cases Page 113 has observed that second complaint petition is not barred and therefore the present complaint petition is maintainable. 8. On perusal of the complaint petition of the instant case, it appears that the complainant had nowhere stated in the complaint regarding the earlier complaint filed by her and also regarding the F.I.R., which she had earlier filed with Jagarnathpur Police Station. On reading the allegations in the present complaint petition along with F.I.R. of the Jagarnathpur P S. Case No. 111 of 2002, it appears that the allegations in both the cases are identical-rather, the same. In the F.I.R. as also the present complaint she has alleged that her husband, Jamil Ansari (accused no.1) had maintained extra marital relation with the nurse (petitioner no.3) working at the same hospital and on protest by the complainant, she was subjected to ill-treatment and physical torture. The allegations of snatching away her gold ornaments were also made in the aforesaid F.I.R and likewise, the allegation that the husband had fraudulently sold away her land and house property, was also levelled in the F.LR. Annexure-3 which is the order dated 28.4.2004 passed In Cr. The allegations of snatching away her gold ornaments were also made in the aforesaid F.I.R and likewise, the allegation that the husband had fraudulently sold away her land and house property, was also levelled in the F.LR. Annexure-3 which is the order dated 28.4.2004 passed In Cr. M. P No. 446 of 2003 confirms that the earlier case vide Jagarnathpur P. S. Case No. 111 of 2002 and the entire criminal proceedings relating to the F.I.R. was quashed by this Court. It was observed in the order that the complainant was divorced by her husband and notice of divorce was received by her on 10.10.2002, where after she had proceeded to lodge the F.I.R. A further observation was made that the earlier complaint filed by the complainant, more or less on similar allegations was dismissed and the facts and circumstances indicate that the F.I.R. was lodged with ulterior motive for causing harassment to the accused and that its continuance will be an abuse of the process of the court. 9. The point for determination is whether the present complaint petition and the criminal proceeding initiated on the basis of the present complaint petition amounts to an abuse of the processes of the court. 10. As already indicated above, the complainant/opposite party no. 2 has suppressed material information in her complaint petition regarding the fact that she had filed an F.I.R. containing the same allegations against her husband and other accused persons and that the criminal proceeding initiated on the basis of the F.I.R. was quashed by the order of this Court. It cannot be disputed that the allegations in the present complaint petition are same and identical to the allegations levelled in the F.I.R, which was registered as Jagarnathpur P S. Case No. 111 of 2002. It is also not disputed that two more complaints which were earlier filed by the same complainant against the same set of accused persons, was dismissed although for default. 11. The controversy as to whether the second complaint on the same facts is permissible, has been finally settled in the case of Poonam Chand Jain & Anr., vs. Fazru 2005(1) East. 11. The controversy as to whether the second complaint on the same facts is permissible, has been finally settled in the case of Poonam Chand Jain & Anr., vs. Fazru 2005(1) East. Cr.C. 118(SC) wherein the Supreme Court while elaborately dealing with the issue and has held that second complaint on the same set of facts could be entertained but only in exceptional circumstances, namely, where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of the complaint or where it was manifestly absurd or unjust. Thus a second complaint can lie on subsequent development of fresh facts or even on the previous facts but only if a special circumstance is made out. 12. In the instant case the complainant/opposite party no. 2 has not made out any exceptional circumstance for consideration as a special case to entertain her complaint, which is based on the same facts earlier stated by her in her previous F.I.R. registered as Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 111 of 2002. In fact the complainant has suppressed the vital information regarding filing of the F.I.R. and also regarding the fact that the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused persons on the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R. was quashed by an order of this Court. It appears that the complainant had also suppressed this fact even before the learned court below and had referred only to an earlier complaint for the offence under Section 497 IPC. with an explanation that since the earlier complaint was dismissed for default and not decided on merits, the present complaint is maintainable. 13. From the admitted facts, it appears that the complainant was divorced by her husband and notice of the divorce was also served' upon the complainant and even thereafter, the complainant has been instituting cases one after the other against her husband and against the same set of accused persons repeatirg her grievance on the same facts. The identical allegations of the complainant which was earlier made in the F.I.R. and the criminal proceeding initiated on such allegations having been quashed by this Court upon a full consideration of the merits of the case, the instant complaint and the criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of the same allegations would amount to abuse of the process of the court and cannot be allowed to continue. 14. 14. I find merit in this application, accordingly, the same is allowed. The entire criminal proceedings against the petitioners vide complaint case no. 43 of 2003 presently pending in the court of Smt. Sangeeta Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, is hereby quashed.