ORDER 10.01.2019 Heard. 2. Prayer under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been made to quash the order of cognizance dated 07.05.2009 of offences under Section 493/506/34 I.P.C. read with Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (in short ‘D.P.Act’) and issuing process against all the petitioners by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khandapara in 1. C.C. No. 2 of 2008. 3. The sole opposite party is the complainant. On 28.04.2007, the complainant lodged an F.I.R. at Fategarh Police Station against petitioner No.1-Narendra Kumar Rout that he assured her to marry and putting vermilion in her fore head continued to keep physical relationship. But subsequently he longed to go for marriage with another girl of Tikiri Pada. When the opposite party protested, she was threatened with dire consequence. Fategarh P.S. Case No. 48, dated 28.4.2007 under Sections 493/417/506 I.P.C. was registered. After completion of investigation final report was submitted and informant-present opposite party was noticed to file protest. On 15.02.2008 as no step was taken, the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr. P.C. It appears from the copy of the order sheet filed as Annexure-2, that the said dismissal order was passed in 1 C.C. No. 119 of 2007. 3-a. On 05.01.2008 vide Annexure-1 the opposite party-complainant has filed 1 C.C. No. 2 of 2008 against the present six petitioners alleging that on 01.03.2007 petitioner CRLMC No.2449 of 2009 no.1-Narendra Kumar Rout accepted her as wife and deceitfully cohabited on 05.03.2007. On 25.04.2007 the complainant came to know that Narendra was going to marry the daughter of one Sana master of Tikiripada. She protested. Narendra threatened her with dire consequence. She disclosed the fact before her father. Villagers came to know. After lodging of the F.I.R., the marriage of Narendra could not be materialized. All the petitioners were absconded. Narendra got anticipatory bail. After some days on the intervention of the mediators the marriage of the opposite party-complainant with Narendra was renegotiated. On 15.09.2007 petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 came to the house of the complainant, finalized the marriage proposal but demanded dowry of Rs.4,00,000/-. For nonpayment of dowry, the effort to establish marital tie failed. Opposite Party was constrained to file complaint. 3-b. The learned Magistrate conducted an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and passed the impugned order dated 7.5.2009. 4. The specific case of the petitioner is that the allegation was false. The petitioner Nos. For nonpayment of dowry, the effort to establish marital tie failed. Opposite Party was constrained to file complaint. 3-b. The learned Magistrate conducted an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and passed the impugned order dated 7.5.2009. 4. The specific case of the petitioner is that the allegation was false. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are parents of petitioner No.1-Narendra Kumar Rout while petitioner Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are his brothers. In the year 2000 while the father of the complainant was getting treatment at Cuttack asked Narendra to help him and proposed his daughter’s marriage with him. When such proposal was not materialized, the F.I.R. was filed. After the investigation, the said case was ended in final report, the complainant did not file any Protest Petition and much thereafter this complaint on self-same facts was filed only to harass the petitioners. 5. None appears to argue the case on behalf of the sole opposite party. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after acceptance of final report, the filing of fresh complaint on the self-same facts is not legally permissible. The entire allegation taken on face value having not disclosed any offence and being instituted with malafide intention, the impugned order dated 07.05.2009 is required to be quashed to prevent abuse of the process of the court. 7. On perusal of copies of the impugned order and complaint petition, it is found that the F.I.R. was filed on 28.04.2007, the final report was received in the court on 13.11.2007. On 15.02.2008 the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not clarify as to the relevancy of mentioning 1 C.C. 119 of 2007 below G.R. No.80 of 2007 in which final report was received and on 15.2.2008 was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. 8. What is noteworthy is that the present complaint was filed on 05.01.2008 in which the factum of renegotiation of marriage between the parents of complainant and petitioners no. 2 to 6 was held on 15.09.2007 in the house of the complainant has been mentioned. The demand of dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- is alleged therein. Thus found the complaint filed on 05.01.2008 has seeds of new facts occurred on 15.09.2007. 2 to 6 was held on 15.09.2007 in the house of the complainant has been mentioned. The demand of dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- is alleged therein. Thus found the complaint filed on 05.01.2008 has seeds of new facts occurred on 15.09.2007. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the facts in the F.I.R. in G.R. Case No. 80 of 2007 and 1 C.C. No. 2 of 2008 are same is not correct. Complaint contains fresh cause of action. 9. In the decision reported in (2018) 72 OCR (SC) 261: Om Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and others, their Lordships have stated that:- “8. This Court in the case of Udai Shankar Awasthy v. the State of U.P. [ (2013) 2 SCC 435 , para 30)] has observed that “the law does not prohibit filing or entertaining of the second complaint even on the same facts provided the earlier complaint has been decided on the basis of insufficient material or the order has been passed without understanding the nature of the complaint or the complete facts could not be placed before the Court, or where the complainant came to know certain facts after disposal of the first complaint which could have tilted the balance in his favour. However, the second complaint would not be maintainable wherein the earlier complaint has been disposed of on full consideration of the case of the complainant on merit.” In the matter on hand, the complainant/appellant came to know certain facts relating to the replacement of parts of the machine after the disposal of the first complaint, that too after getting a service report from “Key Pharma Limited, Delji”, and, therefore, there is no bar for the appellant to lodge second complaint.” 10. In another decision reported in 2012(1) OLR (SC) 165 : Siv Shankar Singh v. State of Bihar, their Lordships have also stated thus: “12. In Jatinder Singh and Ors. v. Ranjit Kaur, AIR 2001 SC 784 , this Court held that dismissal of a complaint on the ground of default was no bar for a fresh Complaint being filed on the same facts. In Jatinder Singh and Ors. v. Ranjit Kaur, AIR 2001 SC 784 , this Court held that dismissal of a complaint on the ground of default was no bar for a fresh Complaint being filed on the same facts. Similarly Ranvir Sigh v. State of Haryana, (2009)9 SCC 642 , this Court examined the issue in the back drop of facts that the complaint had been dismissed for the failure of the complaint to put in the process fees for effecting service and held that in such of fact- situation second complaint was maintainable. 13. Thus, it is evident that the law does not prohibit filing or entertaining of the second complaint even on the same facts provided the earlier complaint has been decided on the basis of insufficient material or the order has been passed without understanding the nature of the complaint or the complete facts could not be placed before the court or where the complainant came to know certain facts after disposal of the first complaint which could have tilted the balance in his favour. However, second complaint would not be maintainable wherein the earlier complaint has been disposed of on full consideration of the case of the complainant on merit. 14. The Protest Petition can always be treated as a complaint and proceeded with in terms of Chapter XV of Cr. P.C. Therefore, in case there is no bar to entertain a second complaint on the same facts, in exceptional circumstances, the second Protest Petition can also similarly be entertained only under exceptional circumstances. In case the first Protest Petition has been filed without furnishing the full facts/particulars necessary to decide the case, and prior to its entertainment by the court, a fresh Protest Petition is filed giving full details, we fail to understand as to why it should not be maintainable.” Ergo, the present complaint 1.C.C. No. 2 of 2008 in which the impugned order of taking cognizance was passed was maintainable. 11. The quashing of criminal proceeding or complaint is now guided on the principle enumerated in the decision reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 : State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others: their Lordships have stated in paras-108 & 109, that:- “108. 11. The quashing of criminal proceeding or complaint is now guided on the principle enumerated in the decision reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 : State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others: their Lordships have stated in paras-108 & 109, that:- “108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1. Whether the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 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. 109. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 12. Relying upon the above decisions, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rupon Deol Bajaj (MRS) and another v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another : (1995) 6 SCC 194 has held that “it is settled principle of law that at the stage of quashing of F.I.R. or complaint the High Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegation made therein.” 13. In the case of Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 1443 of 2018-Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 6532 of 2018), Judgment dated 22.11.2018. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in para-8 that:- “8. It is well settled that exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is exception and not the rule. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 1443 of 2018-Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 6532 of 2018), Judgment dated 22.11.2018. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in para-8 that:- “8. It is well settled that exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is exception and not the rule. Under this section, the High Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But the expressions “abuse of process of law” or “to secure the ends of justice” do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law, including the procedural law and not otherwise.” 14. The complaint petition taken on face value, prima facie makes out offence under Section 493/506/34 I.P.C. read with Sections 3 and 4 of the D. P.Act, 1961. At the time of framing charge, the court is to specify the offences qua the accused person. Since the case has to be tried, any further comment on the merits of the matter may prejudice the trial. 15. For the reasons stated above, no illegality is found in the impugned order dated 07.05.2009 in 1 C.C. No. 2 of 2008. There is no compelling ground to quash the same under Sec. 482 Cr. P.C. 16. Accordingly, the CRLMC is dismissed. 17. The lower court be informed immediately. CRLMC dismissed.