Judgment : 1. Rule heard forthwith. 2. This application is filed for quashing and setting aside the proceeding in R.C.C.No. 9/2008 pending before 4th J.M.F.C., Jalna in Crime No.I-159/2007 registered at Taluka Jalna police station for the offence under Sections 498-A, 494, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under:- That, crime came to be registered on the information given by Indubai w/o Kailash Shinde, wherein she has alleged that she was married to accused no.1 Kailash Prabhakar Shinde, on 10.5.1997. After marriage she was treated well for 2/3 years and thereafter as she has not conceived, she was ill-treated by her mother-in-law, sister-in-law Chaya Kachre and Kantabai Ghate, cousin mother-in-law Sushilabai. It is further alleged that she has further disclosed her ill-treatment to her husband who told her not to say anything about his relatives. It is further alleged by her that she was threatened by her sister-in-laws that they would perform second marriage of her husband. 4. It is further alleged that her father-in-law Prabhakar, cousin father-in-law Vishnu, Nivrutti, Bhagwan Vishnu Shinde, all went and performed his second marriage with Sunita @ Rani. It is further alleged by her that Sunita too, after marriage started ill-treating the First Informant. It is also law Journal Page 2 of 3 alleged by her that other accused have inspired her husband for second marriage and they were present for marriage. On the basis of this complaint, the above mentioned crime came to be registered for the above mentioned offences with the above mentioned police station. 5. It is the case of the applicant that earlier the complainant had filed complaint against 26 accused before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna vide R.C.C.No.618/2005. In that proceeding after verification process was issued against the accused nos.1 to 4, 13,14,19,20 and 23 for the offence under Sections 494 and 109 of I.P.C. Thereafter the complainant filed an application for withdrawal of complaint and in view of the withdrawal application, proceedings were disposed of. 6. It is further case of the applicant that the same complainant has lodged another F.I.R. which is challenged in this application after two years suppressing the fact that earlier complaint which was filed by the complainant for identical reliefs has been withdrawn by her and same is disposed of as withdrawn. 6. It is further case of the applicant that the same complainant has lodged another F.I.R. which is challenged in this application after two years suppressing the fact that earlier complaint which was filed by the complainant for identical reliefs has been withdrawn by her and same is disposed of as withdrawn. According to learned counsel for the applicant, withdrawal of complainant means to acquittal and in those circumstances accused cannot be prosecuted for the same offence after their acquittal. 7. It is further case of the applicant that the present applicants filed Criminal Application No.592/2008 for quashing of FIR before this Court, this Court issued notices to the respondents and granted stay to the further proceeding in terms of prayer clause ’C’. 8. The sum and substance of the arguments of the learned counsel is that, once the complaint was filed, thereafter process was issued by the J.M.F.C. and the very same complainant who made the identical allegations even in that complaint has withdrawn the said complaint then is it permissible to file another complaint after lapse of two years making almost same allegations. 9. It is further case of the applicant that on the second complaint Crime No.159/2007 has been registered with Taluka Jalna police station on 5.8.2007 for the offences under Sections 498-A,494, 323, 504, 506 and 34of I.P.C. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant had submitted that all these applicants except applicant no.2 and applicant no.18 herein, were not party to the earlier complaint R.C.C.No.681/2005. 11. Though the original complainant is served none appears for the complainant. I have carefully perused earlier R.C.C.No.681/2005. The title clause of the said R.C.C.No.681/2005 clearly shows that applicant nos.1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17 were made respondents/accused. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class on the said application had issued process against accused persons no.1 to 4, 13, 14, 19, 20, 23 under Sections 494 and 109 of Indian Penal Code on 25.11.2005 in said al Page 3 of 3 R.C.C.No.681/2005. 12. The perusal of Exh-B at page 18 and 19 of compilation further show that, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class on 24th March 2006 has observed thus- "In view of withdrawal application Exh.26, the pursis Exh.27 and compromise Exh.28 executed at A.D.R. matter stands disposed of." 13. On careful perusal of the contents of the R.C.C.No.681/2005 it is clear that, almost identical allegations are made in the said complaint. On careful perusal of the contents of the R.C.C.No.681/2005 it is clear that, almost identical allegations are made in the said complaint. There is a mention about second marriage of the husband of the complainant on 28.8.2005 and those who have instigated the husband to go for second marriage and those who attended the said marriage were accused in said complaint and subsequently said complaint came to be withdrawn and J.M.F.C. has disposed of the said complaint. 14. On perusal of the contents of the second complaint i.e., FIR 159/2007 would show that almost identical allegations are made by the complainant against 16 applicants who were party to R.C.C.No.681/2005. Except applicant no.2 and applicant no.18 herein all other applicants were made accused even in earlier complaint. 15. In my considered view, when the earlier complaint which was filed for same reliefs and on same allegations as that of in crime no.159/2007 which is registered subsequently, the further proceedings on the basis of second FIR 159/2007 would be clearly abuse of process of law and process of court. The parties approaching the Court cannot be allowed to use the law or the Court, as the case may be, as a stopgap arrangement and to withdraw the complaint and again to file the another complaint for the same cause of action and on the same pleadings. For all these reasons, in my considered view, the subsequent FIR i.e., Crime no.I-159/2007 registered on 5.8.2007 under Section 498-A, 494, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of I.P.C. registered with Taluka Jalna police station is clear abuse of process of law and further proceeding on the basis of said FIR would be abuse of process of Court and, therefore, the application deserves to be allowed. The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ’B’. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause ’B’ and application is disposed of.