Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109190 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21947 of 2015 Applicant :- Anil And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- P.K. Singh,Sudhakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Sudhakar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.D. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been preferred by the applicant with a payer to quash the entire proceedings of the Complaint Case No.3515 of 2003, under Section 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S.Farrukhabad pending in the Court of C.J.M., Farrukhabad. 3. Initially, O.P. no.2 has moved an application under Section 156(3) on 11.04.2003 against the applicants with an allegation that she was subjected to various kinds of cruelty due to additional demand of dowry by her husband and his relatives. Her marriage was solemnized with applicant no.1 on 06.02.2003. The said application was treated as an FIR on 14.08.2003 u/s 498A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted on 13.01.2004 and after issuance of summons, the trial of the case commenced. When the trial was still going, O.P. no.2 again moved a complaint on 28.08.2003 under section 200 Cr.P.C. for the same incident for offences u/s 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P.Act, P.S. Farrukhabad, before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad. In the said complaint, evidence of complainant and witnesses were recorded and summons were issued on 04.03.2005. The applicants have challenged the entire proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case by means of the instant application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that for the same incident two proceedings cannot be allowed to go on. He submitted that O.P. no.2 has initiated two proceedings against the applicants knowingly and intentionally just to harass the applicants. He submitted that the proceedings of the complaint case is pure abuse of process of law as it relates to the same incident for which trial is already going on after registration of an FIR. He further submitted that the allegation against the applicants are general and vague in nature. He further submitted that even the mediator of the marriage has been made an accused (applicant no.3), which shows the conduct of O.P. no.2. At last, he argued that the entire proceedings of the complaint case are liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application and contended that it cannot be said that, prima facie, no case is made out against the applicants. He submitted that whether for the same incident earlier FIR has been lodged or not, can only be looked into during the trial of the case. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is evident that notice has been served on O.P. no.2 but nobody has appeared on her behalf to contest the matter even in the revised reading of cause list. 8. It is not doubted anywhere that for the same set of facts and incident, O.P. no.2 has earlier moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was later on treated as an FIR and the trial of the case commenced and is still going on. In the instant matter, the court below has ignored this aspect of the matter and has issued summons in a very mechanical manner. In my view, two proceedings for the same set of evidence and incident cannot be allowed to continue as it would amount to pure abuse of process of law. 9. In view of aforesaid facts, I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants and accordingly, the instant application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings of the Complaint Case No.3515 of 2003, under Section 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S.Farrukhabad pending in the Court of C.J.M., Farrukhabad is quashed. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Manish Himwan Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad