In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, who is the first accused in C.C No. 351 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II (Mobile), Kozhikode for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 498A and 494 r/w Section 34 IPC, seeks to quash Annexure II complaint in C.C. No. 2 of 2014 and all further proceedings pending before the aforesaid Court. The first respondent is the de facto complainant.

2. The petitioner is employed in Abudabi as a Technician. He entered appearance before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kozhikode in C.C. No. 351 of 2009 and was released on bail. Later he was permitted to go abroad by the learned Magistrate and his personal appearance was exempted.

3. Later, the first respondent filed a private complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kozhikode alleging an offence punishable under Section494 r/w Section 34 IPC against the petitioner, one Indira, the petitioner's mother and sister. The learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner and later the case was made over to the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II (Mobile), Kozhikode. The said case is pending as C.C.No. 2 of 2014. The learned Magistrate has issued process to the petitioner in CC.No. 2 of 2014. The petitioner had gone to Abudabi on 27.10.2014. Therefore, the summons was not served to the petitioner.

4. According to the petitioner, the proceedings in C.C.No. 2 of 2014 is a clear abuse of the process of court. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is facing trial in the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode for the same issue in which the first respondent is the de facto complainant. The first respondent has already examined in the case. During chief examination, she has stated all averments contained in Annexure II. All the witnesses cited in Annexure II are the witnesses in C.C.No. 351 of 2009 and most of them have already been examined. According to the petitioner, the prosecution on the basis of Annexure II complaint is only an abuse of the process of court and if the proceedings in C.C.No. 2 of 2014 is permitted to go on, he will be put to serious prejudice and irreparable hardships.

5. Heard both sides.

6. According to the petitioner, he has already faced trial for the aforesaid offences in C.C.No. 351 of 2009. The first respondent, who is the de facto complainant, has already examined in the case and therefore, she is well aware of the prosecution pending against the petitioner for the offence under Section 494 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the same set of allegations are raised in Annexure II complaint and all the witnesses cited therein are the witnesses in C.C No. 351 of 2009 and most of them were examined. Any findings in C.C.No. 351 of 2009 will act as a bar for the further proceedings on the basis of Annexure II complaint and therefore, no purpose would be served by permitting the proceedings in C.C. No. 2 of 2014 to be proceeded with. It will result in wastage of judicial time and the harassment of the petitioner.

7. According to the petitioner, he is being prosecuted at the instance of the first respondent before two different courts on the basis of very same allegations. The attempt of the first respondent was to get a warrant issued against the petitioner in order to harass him and she has succeeded in her unscrupulous attempt.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supplementary 1 SCC 335) and submitted that the Apex Court has given the categories of cases by way of illustration, wherein inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C or the extra ordinary powers under Article 226 could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Category No.7 illustrated by the Apex Court is as follows:

"(7) Where a criminal proceedings is manifestly attended with mal fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously insti