The police are competent to investigate a composite offense that includes both cognizable and non-cognizable offenses, and the use of force to cause fear or annoyance to a public servant in the execution of their duties constitutes criminal force under Section 353 of the IPC.

1. This is a petition filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 6 dated 16-10-1993 registered at Police Station Machhiwara, District Ludhiana with all subsequent proceedings including order framing the charge against the petitioners.

2. The relevant facts are that Balwant Singh was the Presiding Officer at the police station. Petitioners-Bhupinder Singh and Mohinder Singh had raised objection on one lady voter namely, Avtar Kaur. They contended that she was not a voter of village Mithewal. On interrogation it was found that she was a genuine voter. Petitioners even raised objection over the vote of one Arvinder Singh. Even the said objection proved to be incorrect. On this both the petitioners started raising the noise. Petitioner-Bhupinder Singh snatched the ballot papers from Sohan Singh, Polling Officer and went out side. He tore them. Thereupon Mohinder Singh petitioner came on the table of the Presiding Officer and started picking up the ballot papers and tore them by putting them in his mouth. He was shouting that he will not permit the polling to continue. They grappled with Gursharan Singh and were controlled with the help of the police force.

3. A case was registered at the police station with respect to offences punishable under Ss. 171-A(1), 171-S and 171-P of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samrala on the challan being presented on 23-4-1993 held that prima facie case was drawn against the petitioners with respect to offences punishable under Ss. 171-F and 353, IPC. With respect to the said offences charges were framed by the learned Judicial Magistrate on the same day. To the same the petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. The petitioners assert that the police could not have investigated with respect to non-cognizable offences contemplated under S. 171 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the proceedings as such deserves to be quashed. It was further asserted that under S. 186 of the Indian penal Code, the Court could not entertainor take cognizance without the necessary permission and complaint contemplated under S. 195, Cr. P.C.

6. In the reply filed, the State contests the petition. Preliminary objection has been taken that earlier the petitioners had filed an application for quashing the charge which was dismissed on 30-1-1996. The present petition, therefore, would not be maintainable. It was further asserted that police was competent to investigate offences punishable under S. 353, IPC and if some non-cognizable offence is drawn along with it, the police is competent to investigate.

7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel on behalf of the State pointed that earlier the petitioners had preferred a petition namely Criminal Misc. 86021-M of 1994 for quashing the charge and the same was dismissed in this Court on 23-11-1994. Therefore, the present petition was not maintainable. The petitioners learned counsel on the contrary contended that keeping in view the fresh facts, there is no legal bar for filing of the fresh petition.

8. In the facts of the present case the said contention of the petitioners is totally without merit. Once a petition has been filed which is heard and decided that unless there are subsequent events or facts, a second petition must be termed to be an abuse of the process of the Court. Earlier the petition had been filed seeking quashing of the charges framed and while repelling the contentions, the plea of the petitioners failed. After dismissal of that petition, there is precious little brought on the record to permit this Court to hold that the second petition is maintainable. There are no new facts or events brought on the record. The second petition, therefore, is clearly an abuse of the process of the Court.

9. Even if the merits of the arguments are gone into, the same is without any substance. It was urged that the police could not investigate non-cognizable offences and reliance was placed on S. 155 of the Code of