ORDER

1. The short question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is if the High Court was right in its finding that the appellants were liable to be proceeded with and were not liable to be discharged on the second complaint filed under Section 494 IPC, for which they had been convicted and sentenced earlier.

2. Appellant 1 is said to have married appellant 2. The wife of appellant 2 one Promila filed a complaint under Section 494 IPC, in which the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs 2000 each and in default of the payment of fine a further period of six months imprisonment. Subsequently, Respondent 1, who claims to be husband of appellant 1, filed the present complaint against appellants 1 and 2 and other relations, who too were parties in the first complaint. The appellants claimed that since they had been convicted for the offence, they were liable to be discharged. The trial court dismissed the g application against which they filed revision. The High Court maintained the order and held that the benefit of Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not available as the facts were not the same.

3. Su