ORDER : 1. Petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the complaint case registered at Criminal Case No. 729/2012 pending before learned JMFC, Betul for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of complaint filed by respondent no. 1. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, respondent No, 1 has filed a complaint against the petitioners for harassing her for demand of dowry. Complainant has been married to petitioner No. 1 Sudhakar Gochare and at the same time niece of petitioner No. 1 was also married to brother of complainant. After two months of marriage when complainant become pregnant, her husband forced her for abortion twice and on her refusal, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law (jthani) confined her in a room. It is further alleged that petitioners have forced her to bring Rs. 1 lakh from her parents for which they also used to harass her and threaten her by saying that she will be divorced. On 1-6-2008, she was taken to Court with an intention to get the papers for divorce signed but on refusal, she was badly beaten and thereafter also petitioners continued to harass her. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in his detailed arguments submitted that petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 have been falsely implicated being close relatives of husband and complaint has been filed after divorce. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court towards the letter written by SHO, police station Betul (Annexure-D) mentioning that complainant has been divorced in the year 2010 with mutual consent and complainant earlier also has filed a complaint before the JMFC for the offence punishable under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has drawn attention of this Court towards the letter dated 9-1-2012 according to which the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed as both the parties have entered into compromise and during investigation complainant and her husband were not found, therefore, their statements were could not be recorded. The earlier complaint was filed by the complainant on 23-9-2009. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that both the complaints filed by the complainant are same. The earlier complaint was filed by the complainant on 23-9-2009. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that both the complaints filed by the complainant are same. In the complaint on the basis of which present case has been registered all the initial 10 paragraphs have been reproduced from earlier complaint. But in paragraph 12 of the complaint, it has been mentioned that earlier complaint was withdrawn on the basis of compromise and as the petitioners did not abide the terms of compromise, fresh complaint has been filed. 6. Where, the earlier complaint has been dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of compromise and parties did not abide the conditions and terms of compromise, then second complaint cannot be said to be barred. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited the judgment of Delhi High Court in the matter of Smt. Sangeeta Kalra vs. State (decided on 2nd March, 2007 in Cri. M.C. No. 98/2006) in which while framing charges for the offences punishable under section 498-A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code it has been held that the trial Court must take into account the entirety of the case, all documents which are brought to its notice including the correspondence between the parties and thereafter should decide whether there was case made out or the court was being used as a tool. This judgment has been passed following the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of G. Sagar Suri vs. State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC 636 in which it has been observed that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to be resorted to as a short cut to settle the score. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. Jurisdiction under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Though, the Magistrate trying a case has jurisdiction to discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be groundless, but that does not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code or Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Though, the Magistrate trying a case has jurisdiction to discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be groundless, but that does not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code or Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also cited the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Sundar Babu and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu (decided on 19-2-2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 773/2003) in which it has been held that though the scope for interference while exercising jurisdiction under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code is limited, but it can be made in cases as spelt out in the case of Bhajan Lal. It has been further held that section 482 Criminal Procedure Code does not confer any new power on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also cited the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Smt. Neera Singh vs. State (decided on 23-2-2007 in Cri. M.C. No. 7262/2006) in which it has been held that the husband after marriage was residing separately from his parent and brothers, there were no specific allegations against the accused persons. Learned trial Court was of the opinion that there was not even a single allegation that the accused persons made any subsequent demand of dowry and harassed the complainant for not fulfilling their demand and the complainant most of the time was residing with her husband at Rewari, Haryana, there might have been one or two instances of taunting for not bringing sufficient dowry but they are not sufficient enough to attract section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. 10. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that complainant harassed by all the petitioners and there are specific allegations against all the petitioners. 10. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that complainant harassed by all the petitioners and there are specific allegations against all the petitioners. The earlier complaint has not been prosecuted due to compromise but after dismissal of first complaint, petitioners have not followed the terms and conditions of compromise, therefore, second complaint is maintainable and learned trial Court is justified in taking cognizance against the petitioners. In support of his arguments, he has cited the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Helios and Matheson Inform. Tech. Ltd. vs. Rajeev Sawhney, 2012 SAR (Criminal) 86 in which it has been held that mere filing of a previous complaint cannot be a bar for filing another complaint. It is further held that there was no violation of section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code as on the date Magistrate took cognizance no other complaint was pending in any other Court, previous complaint had been quashed without trial on merits. 11. In the present case, earlier complaint was not dismissed on merits. Second complaint has been filed after complainant came to realize the fraud has been played with her as she has been forced to withdraw the earlier complaint and thereafter, the terms of compromise were not followed by the petitioners. Learned trial Court after considering the statement of witnesses has taken cognizance against the petitioners. There are allegations of harassing against all the petitioners, therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that petitioners No. 2 to 7 have been falsely implicated, therefore, judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners have no application in the present case. Further looking to the allegations mentioned in the complaint, the matter needs consideration after recording of statement of witnesses before charge and trial Court will be at liberty to record the evidence before the charge to decide whether any charge is made out or not. At this stage, it cannot be said that petitioners have been falsely implicated, further the second complaint filed by the complainant is maintainable, therefore, petition is dismissed.