JUDGMENT : 1. Heard counsel for the petitioners, counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners in this application, have prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 9.6.2006 passed by the learned SDJM, Ranchi in complaint case no. 1166 of 2005 whereby, cognizance for the offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, was taken against the petitioners and they have been summoned to face trial. Counsel for the petitioners informs that the petitioners have already appeared in the proceeding before the trial court and had obtained their bail. 3. Facts of the case, stated briefly, relevant for the purpose of disposal of this application, are as follows: The complainant / opposite party no. 2 had filed the complaint on 7.10.2005 against altogether eight persons including the present petitioners citing them as accused on the allegation that even though, at the time of the complainant's marriage with the accused no. 1 Bambam Prasad @ Ajay on 11.3.2000, substantial amount both by way of cash and gold, was given to the husband and in-laws by way of dowry, but despite that, the demand for dowry continued to be made even after the marriage and in order to compel her to meet the demand through her father, she used to be subjected to ill-treatment and cruelty. The accused no. 2 and 3 are the parents-in-law of the complainant, whereas the accused no. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are the sons and daughters of the accused no. 2 and 3. The present petitioners being the daughters of the accused no. 2 and 3, are by relation, sisters- in-law of the complainant. 4. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint as filed by the opposite party no. 2, is out and out an abuse of the process of the court in as much as, the complainant has obtained the order of cognizance against the present petitioners by suppressing material facts. Elaborating his arguments, learned counsel explains that earlier on 8.9.2005, the complainant / opposite party no. 2 had filed a complaint petition before the same court which was registered as complaint case no. 997 of 2005, but after filing the complaint petition, no steps were taken on her behalf and consequently, the complaint petition was dropped by the order of the court below. 2 had filed a complaint petition before the same court which was registered as complaint case no. 997 of 2005, but after filing the complaint petition, no steps were taken on her behalf and consequently, the complaint petition was dropped by the order of the court below. Learned counsel informs that even before the order for dropping the complaint was passed, the complainant had filed the second complaint virtually on the same allegations relating to the same date / period of occurrence as mentioned in the earlier complaint petition, but in the process, she had added two more paragraphs containing wild and vague allegations against the present petitioners. Learned counsel argues that considering the above conduct of the complainant, it is apparent that she is bent upon to harass the entire members of her matrimonial family with obvious malafide motives. 5. Counsel for the opposite party no. 2, on the other hand, argues that the plea taken by the petitioners is misconceived and misleading. Although, it is not denied that the complainant had filed a previous complaint petition, but the fact is that she did not pursue the complaint petition and had allowed the same to be dropped. Learned counsel adds that the complainant is not barred from filing the second complaint petition even on the same allegation and cause of action. Therefore, the order of cognizance having been passed by the court below on the basis of the second complaint petition and the materials available on record, cannot be faulted. Learned counsel adds that the omission in the first complaint petition in respect of the allegation against the petitioners, would be a matter for the trial court to consider while appreciating the evidences and it is only in course of trial that the complainant can be called upon to explain the omission in the earlier complaint petition. If the trial court considers the explanation as reasonable, then in that situation, the omission may not be fatal for prosecution's case. Such matters, according to the learned counsel, may be agitated by the petitioners at the stage of framing charge. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials available on record, it appears that the main ground on the basis of which petitioners have prayed for quashing the order of cognizance, is that the complainant has suppressed the materials facts. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials available on record, it appears that the main ground on the basis of which petitioners have prayed for quashing the order of cognizance, is that the complainant has suppressed the materials facts. The facts which are alleged to have been suppressed, relate to the certain omissions of alleged facts which the complainant had failed to mention in the earlier complaint petition and about the fact of filing the earlier complaint petition. 7. It cannot be disputed that for the same cause of action and for the same allegation, two separate complaint petitions cannot be filed, nor pursued since each of the complaint petitions may lead to initiation of separate proceedings. This certainly is not the object of the procedural law. However, in the present case, as it appears, even though the complainant had filed the previous complaint petition but on her failure to pursue the same, the complaint was eventually dropped. No order of cognizance was passed by the court concerned. Under such circumstances, filing of second complaint petition by suppressing the fact of filing of the earlier complaint petition, may be a ground for seeking a reasonable explanation from the complainant, but it may not prove fatal for the complainant's case. 8. As regards the ground that in the earlier complaint petition there was vital omission which was intentionally added by the complainant in the subsequent petition to the detriment of the present petitioners, this, would again be a matter for the trial court to consider when the accused persons would avail the opportunity to confront the complaint in course of her cross-examination regarding the omission and the explanation received from the complainant in this regard. 9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any such circumstance which would give a reasonable basis to quash the impugned order of cognizance passed against them. With these observations, this application is disposed of. Petitioners shall be at liberty to agitate all the grounds in their defence before the trial court at appropriate stage of framing of the proceeding.