IMPORTANT POINT: There can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offence and all subsequent information will be covered by section 173, Cr.P.C.

A.J. Shastri, J.

1. The petitioners have filed this petition for the purpose of quashing of the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 being Crime Register No. I-284 of 2007 before J.P. Road Police Station, Vadodara, and also the proceedings arising out of the said complaint.

2. The brief facts leading to the rise of present petition are as under:

2.1 M/s. SCI International Securities Ltd. was established by one Sureshchandra Shukla, brother of petitioner No. 1. In the said company, petitioner No. 1 and four other persons were appointed as Directors. Marriage of Sureshchandra Shukla was solemnized at Uttar Pradesh on 10.3.1977 with one Hira Rani and a child named Vilaspati (Pinki) was born out of said wedlock. Said Sureshchandra Shukla passed away on 12.5.2004. Respondent No. 2, who claiming herself to be the second wife of Sureshchandra Shukla, stated that she was appointed as Managing Director in M/s. SCI International Securities Ltd. by passing a resolution on the day before passing away of Sureshchandra Shukla.

2.2 On 9.3.2005, a complaint came to be filed by respondent No. 2 against petitioner No. 1 being C.R. No. I-89 of 2005 before J.P. Road Police Station, Vadodara, alleging that petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Joint Managing Director with the help of bogus documents and in fact, she is the Managing Director.

2.3 Petitioner No. 1 also filed criminal case being Criminal Inquiry Case No. 9 of 2006 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, alleging commission offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120B of Indian Penal Code against three persons including respondent No. 2 alleging that appointment of respondent No. 2 as Managing Director is based on fraud and concocted documents. It was alleged that Form Nos. 22, 32 and 25C were created by respondent No. 2 by putting signature on behalf of the person who was in ICCU ward of the hospital and it was sent to Registrar of Companies. Said complaint was sent for inquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C." for short) and it is pending for consideration.

2.4 As a counterblast, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint being C.R. No. I-284 of 2007 before J.P. Police Station implicating other members including petitioner No. 1 making almost same grievance which was made in her earlier complaint.

2.5 It is this complaint which is made the subject of present petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for seeking quashment of the complaint.

2.6 The petition originally came up for hearing before the Court on 6th December, 2007 whereupon the Court issued notice and granted ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph 7(C). Thereafter, the matter was being listed from time to time. The Court vide order dated 10.7.2015 admitted the matter by issuing rule and confirmed the interim relief granted vide order dated 6.12.2007. Resultantly, the proceedings of the complaint do not appear to have been processed any further. In the light of aforesaid situation, the petition has now come up for final hearing before this Court.

3. Mr. Ashish Dagli, appearing for the petitioners, has contended that the complaint ex-facie is not maintainable and the same is nothing but a clear example of abuse of the process of law. He has further contended that before filing of the present complaint, there was one another complaint lodged on 9th of March, 2005 being C.R. No. I-89 of 2005 against petitioner No. 1 alleging that with the help of bogus documents, petitioner No. 1 got himself appointed as Director and the complainant is running Security Services as Managing Director and the date of her appointment was shown as 10th May, 2004 and therefore, the documents appear to have been concocted. He has further contended that petitioner No. 1 simultaneously has filed criminal case against three persons including respondent No. 2 for the offences punishable under sections 46, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120B of IPC all