Hon'ble MEHTA, J.—The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 30.10.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Criminal Revision No. 38/2009, whereby he has affirmed the order dated 17.9.2009 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagwara, District Dungarpur in Criminal Regular Case No. 526/2009 (Malti vs. Shailesh & Ors.), taking cognizance against the petitioners on a Final Report for the offences under Sections 498-A, 323/34, 379/34 and 504 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent No.2 submitted a complaint in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Simalwara on 11.6.2007 with the allegation that after her marriage with the petitioner No.1 Shailesh Kumar, she was harassed by the husband as well as his other relatives on account of bringing less dowry etc. The said complaint was kept for reporting on 14.6.2007 and thereafter the complaint was directed to be placed in the Court on 20.6.2007. On 20.6.2007, the complainant, along with her counsel, appeared in the Court and made a request to the Court for sending the complaint to the Police Station for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Upon this, the learned Magistrate proceeded to accept the request and directed that the complaint be sent to the Police Station, Dhambola for investigation. The complaint was received at the Police Station, Dhambola on 23.6.2007, where FIR No. 146/2007 was registered and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation of the First Information Report, the complainant was examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 3.7.2007. The complaint was received at the Police Station, Dhambola on 23.6.2007, where FIR No. 146/2007 was registered and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation of the First Information Report, the complainant was examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 3.7.2007. In her statement, in addition to the allegations made in the FIR, the complainant made the following allegations : ^^fnukad 17-6-2007 dks eSa o esjs firkth HkhywMk x;s rks gesa ns[krs gh esjh llqjky okyksa us njokts cUn dj fn;s o ifjokj ds lnL; fins ds njokts ls fudydj pys x;s o dkQh iz;Ru fd;k rks njoktk [kqy x;k vUnj dksbZ ugha Fkk fQj t'kh HkÍ] mfeZyk HkÍ] js[kk] gseyrk] vpZuk HkÍ lHkh fu- HkhywMk vkbZ ftUgksaus xkyh xyksp fd;k esjs lkFk xhrk us ekjihV dh esjs firkth us fcp cpko fd;k mldk Hkh esfMdy ugha djk;k ;g ?kVuk esjs llqj ds ?kj ds vUnj ckgj dh gSA ?kVuk 'kke 6-6-30 cts dh gS jk=h dks 10 cts esjs ifr lkl] llqj o mfeZyk nsoh vk;s esjs lkl] llqj es esjs lkFk FkIiM+ksa ls ekjihV dh esjs firkth us NqM+k;kA eSa ogh jgh mi;qä ?kVuk dh lqpuk esjs firkth us iqfyl Fkkuk lkxokMk esa nh o ?kj pys vk;sA dqN le; i'pkr~ iqfyl vk;h rFkk esjs llqj us esjs firkth ij vkjksi yxk;k fd xgus oxSjk pksjh dj ys x;s gSaA jkr dks 11 cts esjs llqj th us njoktksa ds rkys yxk fn;s eSa cjkens esa vdsyh lksbZ jgh fcLrj Hkh ugha fn;k fnukad 18-6-2007 dks fnu Hkj eSa ?kj ij vdsyh jghA 19-6-2007 dks lqcg eSa cz'k djus ckgj fudyh brus esa esjs llqj ifr o nsoj iM+kslh eulq[kjke th ds edku esa lks;s Fks ftUgksaus vkdj edku ds ckgj rkyk yxk x;k eSaus mudks jksdk rks esjs nsoj us esjs gkFk ls esjk eksckbZy Nhu fy;k o esjs nsoj o ifr us ekjihV dh ftldk esfMdy lheyokMk ls cuok;k tks is'k d:axhA blds ckn eSa vius firk ds ?kj gh jg jgh gwa esjs dksbZ cPpk cPph ugha gSA** 3. A perusal of the said portion of the statement of the complainant reveals that she has mentioned in her statement about certain events which took place with her after the filing of the complaint in the Court on 11.6.2007. A perusal of the said portion of the statement of the complainant reveals that she has mentioned in her statement about certain events which took place with her after the filing of the complaint in the Court on 11.6.2007. In this portion, of her statement, quoted above, the complainant has stated about certain acts of assault said to have made upon her by the accused herein between 17 to 19th June, 2007, i.e. before her appearance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Simalwara, as stated above, on 20.6.2007. 4. The police, after investigation of the said FIR No. 169/2007, filed a charge-sheet on 18.8.2007 in the Court concerned against petitioner Shailesh Kumar for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC. 5. The complainant, however, did not rest satisfied with her above mentioned endeavor to prosecute the accused persons and submitted yet another FIR before the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sagwada on 14.9.2008 with the allegation that after giving a prior intimation to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sagwara, she along with her father, went to her marital home on 17.6.2007 and on seeing her, the accused persons bolted the door from inside. The complainant alleged that she forced her way into the house and on seeing this, the accused persons made their presence scarce from the house but returned back a little later and then started assaulting the complainant and her father. She further alleged that the accused, while assaulting her, told her that she should bring more dowry and only thereafter she would be permitted to live in the house. After that her father left for his house after informing the officers at the Police Station, Sagwada. It was further alleged that at about 11.00 O'Clock, the Assistant Police Inspector Khuman Singh along with two constables, came to her marital home, on which the accused persons requested him to register an FIR against the complainant and her father. 6. The complainant, in turn, informed the police officials about the assault made on her, but no action was taken on her request. She further alleged that on 18.6.2007, the accused persons kept stalking her with the objective of beating her. 6. The complainant, in turn, informed the police officials about the assault made on her, but no action was taken on her request. She further alleged that on 18.6.2007, the accused persons kept stalking her with the objective of beating her. Ultimately on 19.6.2007, when she came out of the house for brushing her teeth, at that time the accused persons locked her out of the house and assaulted her by fists and kicks and told her that she could come back only if she brought dowry as demanded by the accused. The said report, as stated above, was registered as FIR No. 214/2008 at the Police Station, Sagwara on 14.9.2008. The allegation of the complainant is that as a matter of fact she had already reported the incident in relation to the assault made upon her in between the period from 17.6.2007 to 19.6.2007 by filing a complaint in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagwara and the said complaint was also forwarded to the police but the police did not register the case and instead chose to sleep over the matter, on which the complainant made grievances to various authorities. Thereafter on the directions of the concerned court, another complaint in writing was taken and then the FIR was registered belatedly. 7. The police, however, upon investigating the matter, found the case to be false and also came to the conclusion that as a matter of fact all the allegations of the complainant had already been investigated in the earlier FIR filed by her at the Police Station, Dhambola and thus submitted a negative Final Report. 8. The complainant submitted a protest petition and thereafter the learned Magistrate proceeded to take cognizance and summoned the petitioners for the offences mentioned above, by the order dated 17.9.2009. The petitioners challenged the order passed by the learned Magistrate by filing a revision petition and the revision petition too has been rejected, as stated above. 9. The instant miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashing of the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 17.9.2009 taking cognizance and summoning the petitioners for the afore-mentioned offences. 10. Mr. K.L. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceedings against the petitioners by way of the second FIR are absolutely illegal and amount to an abuse of process of the Court. 10. Mr. K.L. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceedings against the petitioners by way of the second FIR are absolutely illegal and amount to an abuse of process of the Court. He submits that the complainant had already filed an FIR against the petitioners at the Police Station, Dhambola through a complainant. The complaint filed on 11.6.2007 was sent to the Police Station, Dhambola where an FIR was registered and the statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 3.7.2007. In the said statement she revealed about the incidents of assault which allegedly were made on her between 17th to 19th June, 2007. Learned counsel, thus, submits that the allegations of the complainant in relation to these incidents had already been investigated and accused-petitioner Shailesh Kumar is already facing trial pursuant to the charge-sheet filed by the police, as such he submits that the present prosecution is nothing but an second prosecution of the accused on the basis of the allegations, which were already investigated earlier. 11. He further submits that the dispute between the parties arose in the beginning of the year 2007 and legal notices were exchanged between the parties. Petitioner No.1 Shailesh Kumar thereafter filed an application for divorce in the Court of the learned District Judge, Dungarpur on24.5.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the legal notice dated 9.3.2007 issued on behalf of the complainant, a specific demand has been made that the accused-petitioner No.1 Shailesh Kumar should take the complainant with him and perform the obligatory conjugal rights with her. Learned counsel, thus submits that the subsequent complaint, on which cognizance has been taken in nothing but a bundle of lies. He contended that had there been a grain of truth in the allegations of the complainant about the assault made upon her in between 17.6.2007 to 19.6.2007, then she had the opportunity to divulge these facts to the learned Magistrate at Simalwara in whose court she appeared along with her counsel on 20.6.2007 in relation to the earlier complaint. He submits that not only the story of the alleged happenings between 17.6.2007 to 19.6.2007 is unbelievable but it is a total embellishment and that is why no such complaint was made to the Magistrate on 20.6.2007 though the complainant had the opportunity to do so. He submits that not only the story of the alleged happenings between 17.6.2007 to 19.6.2007 is unbelievable but it is a total embellishment and that is why no such complaint was made to the Magistrate on 20.6.2007 though the complainant had the opportunity to do so. Thus, he prays that the miscellaneous petition deserves to be accepted and the order taking cognizance, as affirmed in the revision, deserves to be quashed. 12. Per contra, Mr. M.C. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the complainant submits that the allegations made in the impugned proceedings are entirely different from the allegations made in the earlier complaint filed by the complainant. He submits that the present proceedings are specifically in relation to the incidents of assault which took place with the complainant in between the period from 17th to 19th June, 2007. He, therefore, submits that it is not permissible to hold that the present prosecution of the accused is the second prosecution on the same facts. The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the arguments advanced on behalf of the complainant. 13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and carefully perused the documents available on the file. 14. The undisputed facts, which are available on record, reveal that the complainant earlier filed a complaint for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 etc. of the Indian Penal Code on 11.6.2007 arraying her husband and all his family members as accused in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Simalwara. The most important and the undisputed fact in relation to the said complaint is that the complainant herself appeared in the Court along with her lawyer on 20.6.2007 and on that day she made no allegation whatsoever regarding her having gone back to the house of the accused after filing the complaint and the accused persons having assaulted her in between the period 17th to 19th June, 2007. 15 . That apart, it does not stand to reason as to why the complainant, after already having filed a complaint against the accused persons for having harassed her on account of bringing less dowry, would go back to the house of the accused and then continue to stay in he house all alone despite the accused allegedly having threatened and assaulted her. As per the allegations of the complainant, the house of the accused was bolted from inside and she forced her way into the house and the accused allegedly fled away on seeing her. 16. These facts show that rather than the accused assaulting her, as a matter of fact, the accused were afraid of her presence so much so that they made their presence scarce from their own house on seeing the complainant. The allegation made in the complaint in relation to the alleged assault made on her between 17th to 19th June, 2007 apparently appears to be nothing but a piece of concoction for the following reasons : (1) Having filed the complaint by the complainant in the Court of he learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Simbalwada on 11.6.2007, there was no occasion for the complainant to have gone back to the house of the accused on 17.6.2007; (2) If at all she had gone back to the house of the accused and had been assaulted on 17th, 18th and 19th June, 2007, then she would have definitely disclosed these facts to the learned Magistrate at Simalwara when she appeared in his court on 20.6.2007 along with her counsel; (3) the notices, which were exchanged between the parties much before these happenings are indicative of the fact that the matrimonial relations between the spouses had already broken down irrevocably and legal notices had already exchanged between the parties; and (4) the petitioner No.1 Shailesh Kumar was not desirous to keep the complainant with him and had already filed an application for divorce, whereas the complainant was trying to force her way into the house of the accused. 17. With this objective only, despite having filed a complaint against the accused on 11.6.2007, she allegedly went back to the house of the accused on 17.6.2007 and there the alleged incidents of assault are said to have taken place. 18. Firstly, in the opinion of this Court, the very theory of the complainant regarding her having gone back to the house of the accused on 17.6.2007, does not seem to be plausible. That apart, if at all she had gone back and had been assaulted on 17.6.2007 then there was no justification as to why she, despite a threat to her life, still continued to remain in the said house after sending back her father. That apart, if at all she had gone back and had been assaulted on 17.6.2007 then there was no justification as to why she, despite a threat to her life, still continued to remain in the said house after sending back her father. Strangely enough, despite the assault allegedly having been made upon her on three occasions between 17th to 19th June, 2007, it does not stand to reason as to why no disclosure of these acts of the alleged assault upon her was made to the learned Magistrate at Simalwara when she appeared in his count on 20.6.2007 along with her counsel. It seems that the complainant was designing the events so as to create evidence for somehow or the other for entangling the accused persons in multiple criminal cases. 19. The prosecution of the accused in this case clearly smacks of malice. As has already been observed above and as is manifest from the record, legal notices had been exchanged between the parties in the months of March/ April, 2007 and it is distinctly alleged in the notices that the accused-petitioner No.1 Shailesh Kumar was not desirous to keep the complainant with him, whereas the complainant was desirous of going and living with him. Shailesh Kumar had already moved an application for divorce on 24.5.2007 and it is not believable that he would still demand dowry from the complainant for permitting her to stay in his house thereafter. 20. Last but not the least is the fact that the complainant was examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 146/2007 on 3.7.2007 and on being examined, she has stated about the allegations of assault being made upon her by the accused in between the aforesaid three days, i.e. 17th to 19th June, 2007. Thus, the Court, which is trying the case in pursuance to the earlier FIR, is already seized of the facts necessary for charging the accused for these incidents as well if at all they inspire confidence and there was no requirement or justification for the second prosecution to have been launched against the accused in this case. 21. Otherwise also, the incidents, which are alleged to have taken place between 17th to 19th June, 2007, are simple incidents of assault and nothing beyond that. 21. Otherwise also, the incidents, which are alleged to have taken place between 17th to 19th June, 2007, are simple incidents of assault and nothing beyond that. The allegations which have been made against the accused are not such so as to invoke the offences under Sections 498-A, 323/34, 379/34 and 504 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court has no hesitation in arriving at a conclusion that the impugned order dated 17.9.2009 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagwara, District Dungarpur in Criminal Case No. 526/2009 taking cognizance against the petitioners as also the impugned order dated 30.10.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Criminal Revision No. 38/2009 affirming the order of the learned Magistrate, do not stand to scrutiny. 23. The case of the petitioners stands squarely covered by he (7)th Clause of the Guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as below: "In following categories of cases, the High Court may in exercise of powers under Article 226 or under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may interfere in proceedings relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. ... ... ... ... (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 24. The upshot of the above discussion is that the miscellaneous petition deserves to be accepted. The impugned order dated 17.9.2009 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagwara, District Dungarpur in Criminal Case No. 526/2009 taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 498-A, 323/34, 379/34 and 504 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners as also the impugned order dated 30.10.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Criminal Revision No. 38/2009 affirming the order of the learned Magistrate, are hereby set aside. The stay petition also stands disposed of.