ORDER

1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the arguments were heard on 13.5.2024 and today the order is being pronounced.

2. This petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 31.10.2022 passed by the trial Court taking cognizance on the anvil of a complaint made by respondent No.2 and also seeking for quashing of FIR registered vide Crime No.350/2022 against the petitioners and all subsequent proceedings arose pursuant to that FIR.

3. The primary thrust of challenge is based on the ground that respondent No.2 filed a second complaint on the same set of facts and cause of action, which is impugned in this petition. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first complaint filed by respondent No.2 was withdrawn without seeking any liberty vide order dated 17.9.2022, but later-on the second complaint has been made without disclosing the facts about the first complaint and its withdrawal. According to him, second complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that it is an abuse of process of law because the complainant was under obligation to disclose the fact before the Court about withdrawal/dismissal of first complaint, but concealment of such material fact is an absolute indication of mala fide as has been shown by the complainant and as such in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and other (2008) 12 SCC 481; Ram Dhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2012) 5 SCC 536; Krishna Lal Chawla and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2021) 5 SCC 435 and K. Jayaram and others v. Bangalore Development Authority and others (2022) 12 SCC 815, the complaint and all subsequent proceedings originated therefrom are liable to be quashed.

4. In contrast, Shri Vikalp Soni, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that the first complaint was withdrawn as the concerning Court had informed the complainant that the complaint filed by him was not tenable before that Court and as such it was withdrawn and immediately after three days second complaint was made before the competent Court. He submitted that second complaint is no bar under the law. To reinforce, he placed reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of Jatinder Singh v. Ranjit Kaur AIR 2001 SC 784 and Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy and another AIR 2003 SC 702.

5. As per the submissions made on behalf of learned counsel for the parties, the issue which crops up for adjudication is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, when there is perceivable material suppression before the Court by the complainant with regard to withdrawal of first complaint, second complaint can be green-signaled or not. At this juncture, pinpointing the proclivity of respondent No.2, Shri Khare submitted that it is not the issue to be adjudicated whether second complaint is maintainable or not, but the issue is whether second complaint on the face of conduct of the complainant is tenable or not.

6. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival parties and also ventured into the legal position.

7. Indeed, the petitioners and respondent No.2 are partners of M/s. Vaishali Builders and Developers, Sagar, a partnership firm. A project was initiated by the firm in the name of Vaishali Residency in Tikamgarh and the basic agenda of the firm was to sell out the residential duplexes and that the transactions were being carried out smoothly but abruptly in the year 2017 respondent No.2 started creating nuisance/obstructions in the progress of the project. The petitioners thereafter lodged a criminal complaint against respondent No.2. On that complaint, the trial Court took cognizance and registered the offence punishable under sections 427, 294 and 506-B of IPC against respondent No.2. After registration of FIR for the aforesaid offence, a case i.e. RCT No.405/2018 was commenced against respondent No.2. A civil