SURESH KAIT, J.

1. Vide the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred as Cr PC) petitioners seek directions thereby quashing the order dated 11.01.2005 whereby they have been summoned in Crl. Complaint Case No.329/2001 pending before the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 323/427/448 of the IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.01.1999, case FIR No. RC-S-18-99-E0001 was registered by CBI against some unknown persons. On 04.03.1999, searches were conducted by petitioner no.1, the investigating officer of the case at the premises of respondent no.2 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal. On 17.09.1999, preliminary enquiry in respect of disproportionate assets alleged to have been accumulated by respondent no. 2 was registered. Thereafter on 07.12.1999, case FIR NO.RC-S-19-99-E0006 was registered against respondent no.2 for amassing disproportionate assets to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs.40.00 Lac. Upon culmination of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against respondent no.2, wherein the total disproportionate assets of respondent no.2 were assessed about Rs.12 Crores, which was 7500% of his known sources of income.

3. On 19.10.2000, respondent no. 2 was arrested as he did not respond to the notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. issued by the petitioners. He remained in CBI custody from 19.10.2000 to 23.10.2000 and in judicial custody from 23.10.2000 to 27.11.2000. On 30.07.2001, respondent no. 2 filed a Civil Contempt Petition on. 336/2001 before this Court inter alia submitting therein that the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Dilip K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 3017 had not been complied with at the time of his arrest. However, the said Contempt was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28.08.2003. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 filed an SLP, same was also dismissed vide order dated 16.04.2004.

4. During the pendency of the aforenoted Contempt Petition, respondent no. 2 filed a Criminal Complaint No.329/2001 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, Delhi, wherein vide order dated 11.01.2005, ld. MM issued summons against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 323/427/448 IPC. Thereafter, respondent no.2 filed a Crl. Revision Petition no. 27/2007 on the ground that the ld. Trial Court did not issue summoning order against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 218/166/343/120B IPC.

5. Mr. Mohit Mathur, ld. Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that complaint in question is a patent abuse of process of law on the ground that the allegations on which the summons have been issued have already been dealt by this Court in the Contempt Petition filed by respondent no.2. However, respondent no.2 never informed or brought to the notice of ld. CMM this fact which itself demonstrates that the said complaint was an abuse of process of law and mala-fide and instituted with the objective of wrecking vengeance upon the petitioners.

6. The petitioners being officers of the investigating team were discharging their duty and if any obstruction come in between, they are empowered to remove it. The petitioners are protected under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and Section 140 of Delhi Police Act. Respondent no.2 in his complaint has admitted that the alleged offence was committed by the petitioners while conducting raid at his residence. He had also taken up a plea of the conspiracy; however, the same has been rejected by the Revisional Court. Since, the issue raised in the complaint has already been decided, therefore, the rule of estoppel apply in the present case.

7. Mr.Mathur, submitted that as per Section 46 (2) of Cr.P.C. if any person, who is to be arrested, forcibly resists the endeavour to arrest him or attempts to evade the arrest, the arresting officer may use all means necessary to effect the arrest. When the petitioners reached