Naheed Ara Moonis, J.;- Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA and perused the materials on record. 2. The instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet no. 241/2011 dated 22.4.2011 filed in Case Crime No. 204/2011 under section 395 IPC Police Station Chakeri District Kanpur Nagar and entire proceedings arising pursuant to the charge sheet. 3. This matter came before this Court and on 17.10.2011 following order was passed :- 4. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants be kept on record. The instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants praying for quashing the charge sheet no. 241/2011 dated 22.4.2011 in Case Crime No. 204/2011 of 2007 under section 395 IPC Police Station Chakeri District Kanpur Nagar pending in the court of C.M.M.Kanpur Nagar . 5. By means of the supplementary affidavit, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that on the application under section 173 (8) Cr.P.C moved by the investigating officer, on 17.9.2011, C.M.M. Kanpur Nagar sent back papers relating to the case for further investigation as the earlier investigation was not done by the investigating officer in fair and impartial manner and the charge sheet was submitted in very casual and perfunctory manner. 6. I have considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties. The cognizance of offence has already been taken which can neither be recalled nor rescinded. 7. Issue notice to the opposite party no.2 returnable within four weeks. LearnedAGA is also directed to file counter affidavit within the same period. 8. List this case on 21.11.2011 before the appropriate Bench along with office report. 9. Meanwhile it is provided that till the next date of listing , no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants. The applicants will co.operate with the investigation and the investigating officer shall forward such further evidence oral and documentary to the Magistrate in the form prescribed. The applicants are required to file an affidavit about the outcome of the further investigation on the next date of listing. 10. This matter came up before another Bench on 16.12.2011. The applicants will co.operate with the investigation and the investigating officer shall forward such further evidence oral and documentary to the Magistrate in the form prescribed. The applicants are required to file an affidavit about the outcome of the further investigation on the next date of listing. 10. This matter came up before another Bench on 16.12.2011. Sri Anil Kumar Pathak, Advocate had filed memo of appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and during the course of argument ,it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the applicants had earlier filed a Criminal Misc. Application No. 25842 of 2011 under section 482 Cr.P.C. which was disposed of on 17.8.2011 . 11. After examining the material placed on record, it revealed that following order was passed on 17.8.2011 by Hon'ble Single Judge. 12. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anil Kumar Pathak, learned counsel, who put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent. 13. The present application has been filed for quashing of the summoning order dated 30.04.2011 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 6332 of 2011 arising out of Case Crime No. 204 of 2011, under Section 395 IPC and also for quashing of the proceedings of the aforesaid case. 14. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that sister of opposite party No. 2 had earlier initiated proceedings against the applicants under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, under 15. Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Section 125 Cr.P.C., wherein it was contended that i10 car bearing registration No. U.P. 78, BS 6701 was taken by the applicants for dowry. 16. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the i10 car was in the name of the sister of the opposite party No. 2 and was her property and the applicants have not demanded the same. 17. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that in order to take possession of the said car, the present proceedings have been initiated, thereafter the car has also been returned by the applicants to the opposite party No. 2, but in spite of the aforesaid fact, charge sheet has been submitted. 18. 17. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that in order to take possession of the said car, the present proceedings have been initiated, thereafter the car has also been returned by the applicants to the opposite party No. 2, but in spite of the aforesaid fact, charge sheet has been submitted. 18. The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contentions. 19. Sri Anil Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has contended that the car has again been taken by the applicants after assaulting the sister of the opposite party No. 2. 20. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 that there is no legal infirmity in the present proceedings or in the summoning order. 21. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 , State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under section 239, 245(2) or 227/228, Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial Court. The prayer for quashing of the summoning order dated 30.04.2011 and the proceedings is refused. 22. The prayer for quashing of the summoning order dated 30.04.2011 and the proceedings is refused. 22. However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within a period of 30 days from today and apply for bail, then their prayer for bail shall be considered in view of the settled law laid down by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amarawati and another Vs. State of U.P.,2004(57) ALR- 290 and in the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., reported in 2009 (4) SCC 437 , after hearing the Public Prosecutor. 23. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case the applicants do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them. 24. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of. 25. Again this matter was taken up on 16.12.2011 before another Bench and the following order was passed :- 26. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anil Kumar Pathak, learned counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent. 27. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has contended that criminal 482, Cr.P.C. application no. 25842 of 2011 was filed by the applicants on 2.8.2011, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17.8.2011, whereby direction was passed that the applicants shall file discharge and shall move bail application, which was to be considered within 30 days. It is also contended that this is the second application filed by the applicants for the same cause of action on 6.9.2011 without disclosing the fact that earlier 482, Cr.P.C. application was filed by the applicants and which was disposed of. It is further contended that on 15.9.2011 time extension application was filed on behalf of the applicants in the earlier 482, Cr.P.C. application no. It is further contended that on 15.9.2011 time extension application was filed on behalf of the applicants in the earlier 482, Cr.P.C. application no. 25842 of 2011, in which two weeks time was granted to the applicants to appear and surrender before the court below pursuant to the earlier order dated 17.8.2010 but the applicants did not appear and moved the second time extension application on 10.10.2011, in which further two weeks time was granted to them to appear and surrender before the court below vide order dated 12.10.2011. It is next contended that thereafter the applicants obtained interim order in the present application on 17.10.2011 after filing the supplementary affidavit before the court, which order was passed by another Bench of this Court. Thus, it is contended that, the second 482, Cr.P.C. application is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with cost. 28. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that in paragraph no.2 of the present application it has been specifically stated that same is second 482, Cr.P.C. application. It is also contended that the question about the fact that this is second 482, Cr.P.C., was argued at length before another Bench of this Court, which passed the interim order. 29. In view of the above, it will be appropriate that the matter be placed before Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis, J., who had passed the earlier order dated 17.10.2011, after obtaining the nomination from Hon'ble the Chief Justice. 30. This matter has come up before this Court today. From the perusal of the record ,it transpires that the applicants have not complied with the order dated 17.8.2011 passed by another Bench of this court in the earlier Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.25842/11 and has challenged the same proceeding in the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. The applicants could not advance any convincing facts in support of his contention. The deponent of both the applications under section 482 Cr.P.C. is the same person who has been filing successive applications under section 482 Cr.P.C. without complying with the order of this Court which is not only flouting of the order of this court but is also clear abuse of process of law. 31. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are poor villagers and were not aware about the correct procedure of law. 31. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are poor villagers and were not aware about the correct procedure of law. There is no attempt on the part of the applicants to mislead or play the fraud upon the Court. The deponent had no intention to obtain any favourable order on the dint of concealment of facts. 32. Be that as it may, it clearly transpires that all the applicants are common in both the petitions. By this reckoning, it leaves no room for doubt that the present application has been filed by concealing the fact that the earlier application was also filed on the same facts and for the same relief which was disposed of by another Bench of this Court presided by Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.D.Khare vide order dated 17.8.2011. The explanation put forth does not appear to be plausible and it appears to be a fit case in which cost must be inflicted for concealing the fact which is nothing but an unfair device of playing fraud upon the Court by placing wrong facts and grounds which amounts to interference in the dispensation of justice by abusing the process of the Court. 33. In these circumstances, the present application is dismissed . As observed above, it is, besides being an abuse of the process of the court, is a fraud played upon the court, therefore exemplary cost must be imposed. In the facts and circumstances of the case , it is clear that the applicants have made a tacit attempt to inveigle the Court to pass favourable order in their favour and it being a serious abuse of the process of the Court, this Court quantify the cost of Rs. 20,000/- payable by the applicants . which is to be paid at the head of High Court , Legal Services Commission Allahabad within one month. In case the applicants fail to deposit the cost within the time framed as above , the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue by referring the matter to the competent authority that be . 34. A copy of this order be sent to the court below for being placed in the concerned file.