Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J. - (1.) THIS criminal misc. petition has been filed by the accused petitioners with the prayer that FIR No. 26/2012 registered at police station Mahila Thana, Bharatpur on 11.1.2012 for the offence under sections 498A and 406 IPC, may be quashed and set aside and the investigation officer be directed not to arrest the petitioners. Further it is prayed that any other appropriate relief may be granted in favour of the petitioners and if this court comes to the conclusion that the FIR is to be investigated, then in the alternative the investigation may be changed from the present I.O. and direction be given to investigate the matter by an officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police.
(2.) IT is pertinent to note that the instant misc. petition was filed in the month of July, 2012 and it came up for hearing before this court, for the first time, on 13.2.2014 after removal of defects on 21.1.2014 as pointed out by the registry at the time of filing of the petition. Earlier a criminal misc. petition (646/2012) was filed by the same accused petitioners in the month of February, 2012 with the following prayer: It is therefore, humbly prayed that this criminal miscellaneous petition may kindly be allowed and the FIR No. 26/12 police station Mahila Thana, Bharatpur dated 11.1.2012 for offence under section 498A, 406 IPC may kindly be quashed and set aside. The said petition was disposed of by the High Court on 28.2.2012 as under: The I.O. who is present in person has made a statement that he has already called the accused petitioners as well as respondent no. 2 in the police station for counselling. He wants further counselling of the accused petitioners and the respondent and if on that date if compromise could not be arrived at in between the parties, he undertakes not to arrest the accused petitioners. At this stage, learned counsel for the accused petitioners has made a statement that later on if the accused petitioners and the respondent not arrive at a compromise, he should be given liberty to move fresh petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR. In view of above, the criminal misc. petition is disposed of with the undertaking made by the I.O. and the liberty to the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding filing fresh petition as aforesaid. When the present misc. petition was listed before this court on 13.2.2014, the same was got adjourned. Thereafter on 14.2.2014, the counsel for the petitioners was directed to supply a copy of the petition to the counsel for the complainant respondent who had appeared on his own, as no notices were issued by the court till that time. Later on 24.2.2014, the learned public prosecutor was directed to call for the I.O. along with case diary on the next date. The SHO, Mahila Thana, Bharatpur, was present in the court on 26.2.2014, but no one had appeared on behalf of the petitioners. The matter was then adjourned for four weeks.
(3.) IT was on 31.3.2014 that the petition was listed before this court, as similar other matters were also transferred from Court no. 7 which was not available. After hearing the parties a preliminary question arose, as to whether the accused could file another misc. petition by invoking the jurisdiction of the court under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR when similar petition in respect of same FIR had been decided. Learned counsel for the petitioners ultimately sought time to show the law on the point. Therefore, the matter was kept on 3.4.2014 at 1.15 p.m. in chambers for that limited purpose, because this court was having a regular roster in Division Bench. Thereafter on 3.4.2014, learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted the case law in support of his contention that a criminal misc. petition having been once decided, the impugned order can be challenged by way of another misc. petition. The counsel for the petitioners had, in the garb of placing the copies of some judgments on record, filed a misc. application purporting to be in respect of maintainability as well as taking documents on record. Such a method adopted by the counsel for the petitioners was wholly misconceived and not in accordance to the request which he had made on 31.3.2014. As a matter of fact, both the parties were finally heard and the counsel for the petitioner had prayed for time to submit the case law for which the court had ordered that the same be done before the next date, when order in the present case was to be dictated. More over, when one looks to the prayer made in the misc. application filed in the garb of submitting the case law, it is surprising that the petitioners had prayed that if there is conflict in the view of the coordinate bench, then the matter may be referred to the larger bench for decision. On one hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that the earlier misc. petition was not decided on merits and liberty was granted for filing another misc. petition and, on the other hand, he has prayed that if there is conflict of view from the co -ordinate bench, then the matter may be referred to the larger bench.;