The court emphasized that delay in filing a complaint should not be a ground for quashing proceedings and that subsequent applications for the same relief, with different arguments, can be considered an abuse of the court's process.

Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

2. This Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 CrPC has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 3204 of 2009, u/s 323, 325, 504 and 506(2) IPC as well as order dated 2.6.2016 passed in it by trial court.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that complainant had filed complaint case against the applicants after about ten months of the alleged incident, and its explanation has not been given. His further submission is that applicants are public servant and for their prosecution the sanction u/s 197 CrPC is pre-condition which is not been obtained in this case. Therefore, prosecution against them should not be carried out.

4. An application u/s 482 CrPC No. 35534 of 2014 has been filed by present applicants earlier that had been decided by order dated 1.9.2014 of this court. In said application same relief for quashing the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 3204 of 2009 was prayed. In this regard learned counsel for the applicant contended that in earlir proceeding he had not placed those arguments, which are being placed before this court now, and there is no legal bar of moving subsequent application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for same relief; therefore his application should be considered.

5. These contentions were refuted by learned AGA with submission that when earlier application has been decided for same relief sought, so subsequent application should not be considered.

6. So far first argument relating to delay in filing complaint is concerned, it is a matter of defence version that can be considered by trial court at appropriate time, when evidences in that regard are adduced and facts are proved. Delay should not be ground for quashing proceedings, if it does not bar cognizance.

7. The averement in complaint case and finding of trial court at the time of passing order of cognizance and summoning was that applicants had used criminal force and beaten the complainant/opposite party no.-2 and caused serious injuries on his body. Prima-facie this contention cannot be accepted that such act was done in discharge of official duty, for which prosecution sanction u/s 197 CrPC should be required. Whether the alleged act, for which prosecution is being carried out, was done in discharge of official duty or not, can be decided on the basis of evidences adduced in that regard by applicants. Therefore, on this ground proceeding of trial court cannot be quashed at this stage.

8. The order of cognizance and summoning has been passed when trial court had prima facie found that applicants had used foul words and caused injuries on body of complainant. The proceedings carried out on the basis of said summoning order dated 4.5.2009 was challenged in earlier application u/s 482 no. 35534 of 2014 for being quashed, but this Court had declined said relief after considering facts. Thereafter, application u/s 245(2) CrPC was moved. In fact this case relate to facts and not to law points. Whether applicants had caused injuries to complainant-opposite party no.-2 and had committed overt acts for which they were summoned, is a matter of fact that can be proved or disproved on the basis of evidences only. When the order of cognizance and summoning dated 4.5.2009 has become final on the basis of factual aspect, the allowing of any application u/s 245(2) CrPC in such matter will amount to reviewing the said order or recalling it, that cannot be done by trial court. After considering the facts trial court had passed impugned order rejecting application u/s 245(2) CrPC, which apparently suffers from no infirmity or perversity that may require interference by this court.

9. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant on subsequent filing of application u/s 482 CrPC for same relief is totally unacceptable. If this court has once considered the prayer for the relief sought by applicant and r