Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.— Rejoinder affidavit, filed on behalf of the applicants, is taken on record. 2. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, it transpires that Jai Kumar Sharma, private opposite party no. 2, is the real uncle of Vikas, petitioner no. 1, while the petitioners no. 2 & 3 are the real brothers-in-law of Vikas. Petitioner no. 4 is the son of petitioner no. 3. Petitioner no. 1 & respondent no. 2, being the real uncle and nephew, reside in the same ancestral house located at Mohalla Mehatan, Jwalapur, District Haridwar. Vikas lost his father in his childhood. It also appears that their parental house is a huge one and some portion of the same is under tenancy. The rent thereof is being realized by respondent no. 2 Jai Kumar Sharma. Recovery of the rent appears to be the real cause of bitter relations between the uncle and nephew duo. It went to the extent of frequent altercations between them with the result that Jai Kumar Sharma, claiming himself to be a small mechanic engaged in repairing stoves, filed a complaint on 18.9.2000, narrating the incident of quarrel, which took place on 10.9.2000, allegedly initiated by Vikas and his 4-5 companions including the two present petitioners. However, the learned Counsel for the applicants failed to apprise as to what happened on that complaint. 3. Jai Kumar Sharma, lodged another complaint on 26.6.2003, narrating the incident, which allegedly took place on 29.5.2003, wherein after summoning of the accused, when Jai Kumar Sharma was asked to produce his evidence under Section 244 CrPC, he could not produce the same. So, the Court vide order dated 22.6.2004, dismissed the complaint under Section 245(2) CrPC. 4. Respondent no. 2 Jai Kumar Sharma, filed the third complaint on 20.6.2006 narrating the incident of 28.5.2006 wherein he alleged almost similar incident, as was averred by him in his earlier complaint. Complainant examined himself on 20.6.2006 under Section 200 CrPC, and his son Rohit Kaushik and daughter-in-law Pooja Kaushik were examined on 29.7.2006 under Section 202 CrPC. The learned Magistrate, having gone through the statements of the complainant and his witnesses, took cognizance of the offences and, vide order dated 16.5.2007, summoned the accused applicants to face the trial under Section 504 & 506 IPC. It is this cognizance order dated 16.5.2007, which is under challenge in this petition moved under Section 482 CrPC. 5. The learned Magistrate, having gone through the statements of the complainant and his witnesses, took cognizance of the offences and, vide order dated 16.5.2007, summoned the accused applicants to face the trial under Section 504 & 506 IPC. It is this cognizance order dated 16.5.2007, which is under challenge in this petition moved under Section 482 CrPC. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicants petitioners has argued that this is a civil dispute arisen between the parties on account of the ancestral property and the same got escalated on the question of recovery of rent from the tenants occupying the said ancestral house. He further submitted that the complainant has thrice filed complaint against the accused applicants alleging almost similar incidents. 6. This Court is not at all convinced with the arguments put forth by the learned Counsel for the applicants petitioners. Second or third complaint, for a different cause of action, is not barred by the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Having considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, I am of the view that if the allegations made and the evidence collected against the accused are taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, a prima facie case is made out, but only against the applicants petitioners no. 1, 3 & 4, namely, Vikas, Yado Ram Sharma & Har Kumar, who have rightly been summoned by the trial court. However, this Court is conscious of the fact that the applicant petitioner no. 2 Ajay, who lives separately in Muzzafarpur town of Uttar Pradesh, cannot be expected to be a party of any such alleged incident and from the allegations made in the impugned complaint, no offence is made out against him. Hence, the impugned order of cognizance as well as the proceedings of the Criminal Complaint Case No. 799/2007, are liable to be set aside so far as the same relate to the petitioner no. 2 Ajay. 8. Resultantly, the petition is partly allowed. Impugned order of cognizance dated 16.5.2007 as well as the proceedings of the Criminal Complaint Case No. 799/2007, are hereby set aside so far as the same relate to the petitioner no. 2 Ajay only, as indicated above. The petition in respect of rest of the petitioners, namely, Vikas, Yado Ram Sharma and Har Kumar, is dismissed. Stay order dated 5.7.2007 stands vacated accordingly. 2 Ajay only, as indicated above. The petition in respect of rest of the petitioners, namely, Vikas, Yado Ram Sharma and Har Kumar, is dismissed. Stay order dated 5.7.2007 stands vacated accordingly. 9. Inform the court concerned accordingly so that the trial against the aforenamed accused applicants may proceed further. _