1. Leave granted.

2. This is a case in which the process of law has been grossly abused and misused by the private respondent. A private complaint was filed against the appellants herein and other accused persons after a closure report had already been submitted qua the appellants, resulting in the trial of other accused persons, in relation to the same occurrence, arising out of the same set of facts and circumstances.

3. The second respondent before us filed a First Information Report against the appellants herein and other accused persons for the offences under S.143, S.147, S.148, S.149, S.323, S.324 and S.447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC'). The charge sheet was filed way back in the year 2015. The appellant Nos. 1 to 3 were not included in the report. The Trial Court took cognizance of the negative report qua the aforesaid appellants, and the trial commenced in CC No. 295/2016 qua the remaining accused persons.

4. The sum and substance of the allegations is that the appellants, along with their husbands, confronted the de facto complainant / respondent No.2 in the southern courtyard of his shop and attacked him.

5. Notwithstanding the failure of the respondent No.2 to file a protest petition qua the appellants, against whom the negative report had been filed, he chose to file a private complaint invoking S.200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CrPC') after a lapse of two and a half years. Challenging the committal proceedings initiated by the Magistrate, the appellants approached the High Court by invoking S.482 of the CrPC. The same was dismissed on the premise that a new offence has been added by the introduction of S.308 of the IPC and, therefore, there is no need to allow the same.

6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent.

7. While learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that it is a clear case of abuse of process of law, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, by placing reliance upon the decision of this Court in Surender Kaushik & Ors vs State Of U.P & Ors. - (2013) 5 SCC 148, submits that in exceptional cases, a second complaint can be maintained. He further submitted that, the offence charged being different, along with the addition of more accused persons and the failure of the investigating agency to investigate the said offence, there is no need to interfere with the issuance of the process to the appellants herein.

8. As noted by us earlier, this is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. A detailed investigation has been conducted, and a negative report has been filed. Respondent No.2 has not challenged the said negative report. The occurrence alleged is the same. The appellants were arrayed as accused in the earlier First Information Report, and they were subsequently dropped from the investigation. By merely adding an offence for the same occurrence, and by the same informant, a second complaint through the invocation of S.200 of the Code is certainly not maintainable.

9. In Surender Kaushik & Ors. (supra) This Court was pleased to hold as under:
"24. From the aforesaid decisions, it is quite luminous that the lodgment of two FIRs is not permissible in respect of one and the same incident. The concept of sameness has been given a restricted meaning. It does not encompass filing of a counter FIR relating to the same or connected cognizable offence. What is prohibited is any further complaint by the same complainant and others against the same accused subsequent to the registration of the case under the Code, for an investigation in that regard would have already commenced and allowing registration of further complaint would amount to an improvement of the facts mentioned in the original complaint. As is further made clear by the three - Judge Bench in Upkar Singh (supra), the prohibition does not cover the allegati