ORDER 1. Instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred for quashing of impugned F.I.R. No.145/2021 registered at Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur City (East) for commission of offence punishable under Section 166-A of Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned F.I.R. bearing No.145/2021 is nothing except an abuse of process of law, as two F.I.Rs. have been lodged for the same offence arising out of same incident, which violates the Article 20 of the Constitution and also of Section 300 of Cr.P.C. as lodging of two F.I.Rs., would lead to two separate trials, which is against the established principles of law. Counsel further submits that the petitioner did not require the complainant to attend his office for investigation, rather it was the complainant, who had persistently asked the Investigating Officer/petitioner to come and visit her office. Counsel also submits that the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act trying the offence is also competent to try any other offence and, therefore, the present F.I.R. is solely an abuse of process of law, as the offence under Section 166-A of I.P.C. could have been simultaneously added in F.I.R. No.80/2021. Counsel contends that the complainant has deliberately lodged the impugned F.I.R. against the petitioner on the basis of false, frivolous and bogus allegations. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition may be allowed and the impugned F.I.R. be quashed. 3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has placed reliance upon the following judgments :- T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Others, A.I.R. 2001 SC 2637, Lalita Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.2741/2013, decided on 09.11.2013 and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2013) 6 SCC 348 . 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned F.I.R. as also the material made available on record. 6. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned F.I.R. as also the material made available on record. 6. The aforesaid judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, fail to advance the case of the petitioner, as in the present case the victim had been called repeatedly by the petitioner in F.I.R. No.365/2020 and two others F.I.Rs., hence, it cannot be treated as second F.I.R. for offence arising out of F.I.R. No.80/2021. 7. From perusal of F.I.R. impugned, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence has been committed. The specific allegations in the F.I.R. impugned have been levelled against the petitioner. The allegations in the complaint, prima-facie, satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence alleged. The Police has statutory right to investigate the matter, hence, no case is made out for quashing of F.I.R. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajanlal & Ors. : 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335], laid down guidelines for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash F.I.R. and criminal proceedings. 9. In another case of N. Soundaram Vs. P.K. Pounraj & Anr. : (2014) 10 SCC 616 ], Hon'ble Supreme Court, while reiterating the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra) on scope of exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., observed as under :- "It is well settled by this Court in a catena of cases that the power under Section 482 CrPC has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice [See State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal]. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. Taking the allegations and the complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence was made out, only then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its power under Section 482, CrPC. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance. Taking the allegations and the complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence was made out, only then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its power under Section 482, CrPC. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance. [See Vinod Raghuvanshi v. Ajay Arora] (2013) 10 S.CC. 581 ." 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, so also in the light of the judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court, no case for quashing of impugned F.I.R. No.145/2021 registered at Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur Cirty (East) is made out. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. Stay application also stands disposed of.