R.P. Nagrath, J. The instant petition has been filed by Sham Lal-petitioner through Special Attorney, namely; Shiv Kumar his real brother for quashing of FIR No. 140 dated 14.5.2000 registered under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Police Station Nakodar, District Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. The FIR was registered on the statement of Ramesh Kumar, brother of Manjit Kaur (deceased). The petitioner was initially declared a proclaimed offender. Charge-sheet was presented against parents of petitioner and his sister-in-law. They were acquitted vide judgment dated 18.1.2003 (Annexure P-2), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, in Sessions Case No. 27 of 2001. On that basis the petitioner filed the instant petition. 2. I have heard learned petitioner's counsel, learned State counsel and after giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I find that the instant petition is total misuse of the process of the Court and the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of this Court. 3. The instant petition was filed by he petitioner after being un-successful in the earlier two petitions filed with the same prayer and that fact has been concealed. Petitioner had filed CRM-M-40259-2004, through Shiv Kumar his brother as Special Attorney with the same prayer. That was also based on the fact that co-accused were acquitted vide judgment dated 18.1.2003 (Annexure P-2), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. That petition was listed on 27.8.2004 and this Court passed the following order:-- The petitioner, who is a proclaimed offender, has filed this petition for quashing FIR No. 140 dated 14.5.2000 under Section 306/34 IPC, registered with Police Station Nakodar, District Jalandhar, on the ground that his co-accused have been acquitted by the trial Court. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain this petition at the instance of the petitioner, who is a proclaimed offender and has run away from the process of the Court. Dismissed. 4. Subsequent to that, the petitioner filed petition bearing CRM-M-4071-2005, for pre-arrest bail which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.2.2005 (Annexure P-4) directing the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating/Arresting Officer on 25.2.2005 at 10.00 a.m. and to join the investigation thereafter also as and when called by the police and admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. Learned State counsel submitted that the petitioner did not join the investigation after 25.2.2005 but the contention of learned petitioner's counsel was that the petitioner was never called by the police thereafter. 5. That is, however, quite an insignificant factor because subsequent to the said order, a petition CRM-M-41990-2006, was again filed by the petitioner through his same special attorney, namely; Shiv Kumar, seeking quashing of the FIR and the subsequent proceedings and the following order was passed by this Court on 20.7.2006:-- The petitioner has not disclosed all the relevant facts in this petition for quashing FIR No. 140 dated 14.5.2000 under Section 306/34 IPC registered at Police Station Nakodar, District Jalandhar. In view of this, counsel states that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file fresh petition with better particulars. Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. 6. It appears that CRM-M-41990-2006, was withdrawn because the factum of filing of earlier CRM-M-40259-2004, was not disclosed. It is pertinent to mention that the instant petition has again been filed by the petitioner through Shiv Kumar his real brother as his special attorney. That special power of attorney is dated 27.5.2004 but strangely enough the attorney had guts to state in para No. 15 of the instant petition that the petitioner has not filed any such or similar petition either before this Court or before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. There is even an affidavit sworn-in by Shiv Kumar S/o. Mohinder Pal testifying the same statement that the deponent has not filed any other petition on the similar ground in this Court etc. 7. The State filed its reply opposing the petition and obviously the State could not mention about filing of earlier petitions for the same relief, as those petitions were dismissed at the preliminary stages even before issuing notice to the State. 8. If the earlier petitions for the same relief have been dismissed for whatever reason, the remedy with the petitioner was elsewhere and not to file the petition in this Court, concealing the aforesaid fact, simply on the ground that view of the Division Bench of this Court in two connected appeals bearing CRA D 638 DB 2007, (Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal v. State of Punjab) and CRA-D-9-DB-2010, (Dharminder Mandal v. State of Punjab) decided by a common judgment dated 17.3.2011 (Annexure P-5) supports the petitioner's case. In fact, in CRM-M-24421, (Jagjit Singh v. The State of Punjab) decided on 24.5.2006, this view was already taken. 9. It may be stated that the ground of quashing in all the petitions filed by the petitioner is the same that the co-accused have been acquitted. The principle held by the Division Bench of this Court relating to different parties dealing with the similar question, cannot be a ground for quashing though that can be only a contention in support of the case. 10. In view of the above, the instant petition is dismissed with exemplary costs of ` 50,000/-. Before parting with this judgment, I also deem it appropriate that Shiv Kumar who has sworn-in false affidavit by stating that no other petition on the similar ground was filed in this Court, should be directed to give his response as to why he should not be prosecuted in terms of Section 340 Cr.P.C. Registry shall prepare a separate file for conducting proceedings against the said Shiv Kumar in terms of Section 340 Cr.P.C. and the file be put up for that purpose on 31.1.2014 by attaching copy of this order and records of the instant petition and the above-stated two petitions be also tagged with the same. _