Judgment :-

Altamas Kabir, J.

.1. These Special Leave Petitions arise out of the judgment and order passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court on 31st May, 2007, dismissing two criminal revision cases, viz., Crl. Misc. No.6703-M of 2000 and Crl. Misc. No.598-M of 2005 filed by the petitioner herein, who is appearing in-person. Crl. Misc. No.6703-M of 2000 was filed by the petitioner herein to quash a complaint filed by Smt. Ved Wati, Respondent No.2 herein, on 1st July, 1999, under Section 420/34 I.P.C. on allegations of payment having been received by the petitioner to perform certain favours for the complainants son-in-law by making use of his official position. Process was issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, Haryana, on the said complaint on 19th August, 1999. The said

.matter is still pending before the learned Magistrate.

2.2. The Crl. Misc. No.598-M of 2005 was filed by the petitioner for quashing another complaint filed by the said Smt. Ved Wati on 29th September, 2003, under Sections 7, 8, 9, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, issued process on 8th January, 2004. Both the Criminal Revision Petitions were taken up for hearing and disposal together by the High Court on 31st May, 2007, and were dismissed by a common judgment and order, which has been assailed in these Special Leave Petitions.

3.3. The petitioner, who appeared in-person, submitted that the High Court had erred in rejecting the revisional applications filed by him since in the first complaint filed on 1st July, 1999, the complainant had stated that sanction was being sought for prosecuting the petitioner, but such sanction had never been obtained.

.4. The petitioner also submitted that thereafter the complainant applied for sanction to prosecute the petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on four different occasions, but such sanction was not granted while the petitioner remained in service. The petitioner ultimately retired from service on 31st January, 2002. Immediately thereafter, on 8th April, 2002, the complainant filed the complaint mentioned hereinabove under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on 8th April, 2002, which was entertained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, and process was issued on 16th April, 2003. The petitioner further submitted that the complaint filed on 8th April, 2002, on which process had been issued on 16th April, 2003, came to be dismissed on 24th July, 2003, for non-filing of process fee. The petitioner submitted that an application filed by the complainant on 18th September, 2003, for recall of the order dated 24th July, 2003, was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. Thereafter, yet another complaint was filed by Smt. Ved Wati on 29th September, 2003, on the same grounds under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on which process was issued on 8th January, 2004. The petitioner submitted that having taken cognizance on the complaint filed by Smt. Ved Wati and the same having been dismissed for non-filing of process fee, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, was no longer competent to take cognizance and issue process on a separate complaint on the same cause of action. According to the

.petitioner, the complaint filed on 29th September, 2003, was nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court having regard to the fact that the earlier complaint on which cognizance had been taken was dismissed on account of non-filing of process fee.

4.5. In support of his aforesaid submission, the petitioner firstly referred to the decision of this Court in Pramatha Nath Talukdar vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar [AIR 1962 SC 876], wherein the majority view of the Three-Judge Bench was that an order of dismissal on a complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. does not constitute bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts, but it w