ORDER : “Whether the proceedings in PCR No.48/2012 on the file of LXXVIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, special Judge, PC Act, Bengaluru (CCH-79) against the petitioner amount to abuse of the process of the Court”? is the question involved in this case. 2. One S.Girish Kumar filed the complaint against the petitioner in Crime No.226/2012 of Hassan Extension Police Station alleging that the petitioner was indulging in illegal possession and sale of arms and ammunition and on sting operation, he has collected the material about the same. 3. On the basis of such complaint, the first information report dated 20.09.2012 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. After investigation, Hassan Extension police submitted ‘B’ summary final report dated 20.06.2016 stating that no material constituting the offence was found and the complaint was false one. 4. On receipt of such final report, the jurisdictional Court issued notice of the said ‘B’ report to the complainant Girish Kumar on 28.06.2016 as per Annexure-K and that was served on him. He did not file any protest petition or contest the ‘B’ summary report. 5. Later said Girish Kumar and respondent No.2 filed PCR No.48/2012 against the petitioner and accused Nos.2 to 8 on the same allegations. Accused No.3 to 8 were public servants namely Deputy Commissioner, Superintendent of Police, Additional Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police (Public Relationship Officer), Deputy Commissioner of Police (Administration & Arms Section), Additional Commissioner of Police etc. They are implicated as accused alleging that taking sides of the petitioner, they did not properly investigate in the earlier complaint, thereby they have committed misconduct. Thus the complainants sought to prosecute the accused for the offences punishable under Section 3 to 5, 7 to 12, 25, 27, & 29 of the Indian Arms Act etc. and accused Nos.3 to 8 for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B and 34 of IPC. 6. Later Girish Kumar withdrew from the complaint and on his memo his name was deleted from the complaint. The learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 13.09.2019 Annexure-A referred the complaint to respondent No.1 for investigation. 7. 6. Later Girish Kumar withdrew from the complaint and on his memo his name was deleted from the complaint. The learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 13.09.2019 Annexure-A referred the complaint to respondent No.1 for investigation. 7. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order Annexure-A and the proceedings in PCR No.48/2012 on the ground that once the final report exonerating the accused was filed, the Court cannot refer the matter again for re-investigation and that amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. 8. Sri S.Ajesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the complaint was vexatious and there was suppression of material facts. 9. Respondent No.2 though served has remained unrepresented. Sri Jeevan J.Neeralgi, learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that in the earlier complaint, accused Nos.2 to 8 were not arraigned as accused and the present complaint is on different cause of action. 10. Annexures-G & H, the first information report and ‘B’ report in Crime No.226/2012 the earlier complaint show that the allegations in the present complaint and the earlier complaint were substantially the same. 11. In the present complaint, only accused Nos.3 to 8 who were public servants were arrayed with the allegations that by adopting corrupt practices they tried to protect the petitioner. If that was the case, the remedy of the complainant was to contest ‘B’ report filed by police in the first complaint. 12. Only to give the colour of different complaint, present respondent No.2 was arrayed as co-complainant in the case. Later in a crafty way the name of Girish Kumar was deleted only to see that the complaint does not fail on the ground that the earlier complaint ended in ‘B’ report. A thorough reading of the entire records show that the second complaint is only a repetition of the earlier complaint which amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 10 of the judgment in Krishna Lal Chawla & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr, Crl.A.No.283/2021 (Arising out of Sl.P.(Crl.) No.6432/2020 DD 08.03.2021 held that suppressing the material facts, and utilizing fresh proceedings to materially improve the earlier version of the complaint totally amounts to gross abuse of the process of the Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 10 of the judgment in Krishna Lal Chawla & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr, Crl.A.No.283/2021 (Arising out of Sl.P.(Crl.) No.6432/2020 DD 08.03.2021 held that suppressing the material facts, and utilizing fresh proceedings to materially improve the earlier version of the complaint totally amounts to gross abuse of the process of the Court. It was further held that the trial Court also has constitutional duty to dispose of the frivolous litigation at the earlier stage by exercising, substantially to the fullest extent, the powers conferred on it. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 17 of the judgment in Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, (2009) 6 SCC 346 held as follows: “17. From a plain reading of sub-section (2) and sub-section (8) of Section 173, it is evident that even after submission of the police report under sub-section (2) on completion of the investigation, the police has a right to "further" investigation under sub-section (8) of Section 173 but not "fresh investigation" or "reinvestigation". The meaning of "Further" is additional, more, or supplemental. "Further" investigation, therefore, is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. Therefore the trial Court committed gross error in referring the matter for reinvestigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The proceedings in PCR No.48/2012 are gross abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore the petition is allowed. The impugned order referring the matter for reinvestigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the proceedings in PCR No.48/2012 on the file of LXXVIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Special Judge, PC Act, Bengaluru (CCH-79) are hereby quashed.