ORDER : ANAND SHARMA, J. 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of criminal case No. 256/2019 arising out of FIR No. 545/2018 registered at Police Station Mahuwa, District Dausa for alleged offence under Section 498A of IPC . 2. It is stated that marriage of petitioner with complainant took place on 17.06.2010 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Ceremonies however, after sometimes, on account of marital discord between the parties one FIR No. 204/2017 was registered by the complainant against the petitioner on 23.09.2017 at Police Station Raini, District Alwar for alleged offences under Sections 498A & 406 of IPC . It is alleged in the FIR that the petitioner along with his family members have caused physical as well as mental cruelty upon the complainant for demand of dowry. Details of dowry articles were also given in the FIR and it was specifically mentioned that for not satisfying the demand of dowry, the complainant was thrown out of matrimonial home by the petitioner on 25.03.2017 thereafter, despite repeated counseling, the behaviour of petitioner and his family members did not improve and they did not agree for keeping the complainant at matrimonial home. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to earlier FIR No. 204/2017, investigation was conducted by the police authorities and during investigation, entire dowry articles have been recovered by the police authorities and charge- sheet has been filed against the petitioner. Thus, for the allegations leveled in the said FIR No. 204/2017 for offences under Sections 498A, 406 of IPC , the petitioner is facing trial before the competent criminal court. 4. It is further submitted that thereafter another FIR No. 545/2018 has been lodged at Police Station Mahuwa, District- Dausa, however, bare perusal of the contents of FIR would not constitute any cognizable offence whatsoever against the petitioner. In the second FIR lodged against the petitioner lodged on 17.12.2018, not a single incident has been narrated by the complainant to show that after lodging the earlier FIR on 23.09.2017, the petitioner has ever demanded dowry from the complainant, nor were there any allegations with regard to committing cruelty by the petitioner upon the complainant after lodging first FIR dated 23.09.2017. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also indicated that even the contents of first FIR and second FIR are self contradictory. In first FIR, the allegations have been leveled by the complainant even against the parents of the petitioner leveling specific accusations that they were also demanding dowry from the complainant and for not satisfying such demand, she was dealt with cruelty even by the parents of the petitioner. Whereas, in the second FIR, it has been stated that the relations of the complainant with the parents of the petitioner are good; however, the petitioner has not been maintaining his parents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner is already facing trial pursuant to allegations leveled in first FIR relating to demand of dowry and criminal breach of trust; then, the second FIR with a same cause of action and by narrating no new incident is not maintainable and the petitioner cannot be forced to face vexatious and frivolous trial pursuant to such second FIR No. 545/2018. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the instant criminal misc. petition and submitted that the FIR was lodged in the year 2018 thereafter, the police authorities have conducted investigation and have also filed charge-sheet against the petitioner before the competent criminal Court. It is objected that at this stage, no interference can be made by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which is extremely limited and cannot be exercised in the facts and circumstances of the case where, the allegations in the FIR for causing cruelty and demand of dowry are specific in nature. It is submitted that the earlier FIR No. 204/2017 was lodged on altogether different facts whereas the allegations in the impugned FIR are totally different, hence lodging of such second FIR on different facts of cause of action is not barred. Hence, they have prayed for dismissing the instant criminal misc. petition. 7. I have perused the record and carefully heard the rival arguments of learned counsel for the parties. 8. It is an undisputed fact that earlier FIR No. 204/2017 for offences under Sections 498A & 406 of IPC was lodged by the complainant against the petitioner, in which following allegations were leveled: 9. petition. 7. I have perused the record and carefully heard the rival arguments of learned counsel for the parties. 8. It is an undisputed fact that earlier FIR No. 204/2017 for offences under Sections 498A & 406 of IPC was lodged by the complainant against the petitioner, in which following allegations were leveled: 9. It has also not been disputed by learned counsel for the complainant that pursuant to such FIR No. 204/2017, during investigation, all the dowry articles have been recovered from the petitioner and after filing Challan, the petitioner has been facing the trial before the competent Court. The aforesaid first FIR was lodged by the complainant on 23.09.2017. So far as, the impugned FIR No. 545/2018 is concerned, bare reading of the same would not reflect any allegation whatsoever indicating any overt act of the petitioner so as to suggest commission of any cognizable offence by the petitioner against the complainant. No allegation whatsoever has been leveled in the impugned FIR of either demanding dowry or causing any assault or cruelty against the complainant after lodging of first FIR dated 23.09.2017. Contents of impugned FIR are also reproduced hereunder: 10. This Court is conscious with regard to legal position that jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised in routine manner and only in the cases where there is apparent and manifest abuse of process of law, which is causing miscarriage of justice to the petitioner, inherent jurisdiction of this Court can be exercised. 11. It is clear from perusing the provisions of Article 20(2) of Constitution of India as well as Section 300 Cr.P.C. that, no person can be tried twice for the same allegations therefore, under the circumstances where the petitioner is already facing trial for causing cruelty in demand of dowry pursuant to first FIR, without there being any disclosure of fresh cause of action relating to same offence, he cannot be prosecuted twice on account of similar allegations. 12. In the instant case, even otherwise bare perusal of the impugned FIR would not make out cognizable offence against the petitioner. That apart, the complainant in the impugned FIR has maliciously and deliberately concealed the fact regarding lodging of first FIR and proceedings thereupon. Suppression of such material facts in second FIR also puts a question with regard to bonafides of the complainant. That apart, the complainant in the impugned FIR has maliciously and deliberately concealed the fact regarding lodging of first FIR and proceedings thereupon. Suppression of such material facts in second FIR also puts a question with regard to bonafides of the complainant. Thus, it is clear from the facts that lodging of impugned FIR is sheer abuse of process of law by the complainant, which has resulted in failure of justice to the petitioner. 13. So far as the objection raised by learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for complainant since during pendency of the instant petition charge-sheet has been filed, hence, petition for quashing FIR is not maintainable is concerned, it is sufficient to observe that law in this regard has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by delivering consistent judgments. In the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta Vs. State of Gujarat (2019) 11 SCC 706 , while dealing with similar objection the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there is nothing under law to restrict power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of law or miscarriage of justice merely for the reason that charge-sheet has been filed. On the contrary, abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of charge-sheet after investigation. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs. State of Gujarat , (2011) 7 SCC 59 , A.M. Mohan Vs. State , 2024 SCC OnLine 339, Mamta Shailesh Chandra Vs. State of Uttrakhand , 2024 SCC Online 136 and in Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors Vs. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 4003/2024 decided on 25.09.2024) 14. In the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down following guidelines for the purpose of exercising inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of interfering in FIR/criminal proceedings. "(102). In the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down following guidelines for the purpose of exercising inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of interfering in FIR/criminal proceedings. "(102). 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 extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given 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 channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where 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 FIR 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 FIR 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 FIR 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. (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." 15. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances where from bare reading of the FIR, no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. It becomes clear that only to exert undue pressure upon the petitioner in quite malafide manner, the second FIR No. 545/2018 has been lodged by the complainant, therefore, this Court deems it just and proper to exercise its inherent jurisdiction and to quash and set-aside FIR No. 545/2018 along with all subsequent proceedings undertaken pursuant to the said FIR. 16. The criminal misc. petition stands allowed, accordingly.