IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13372 of 2006 JEROME VARMAN,S/O Late Sri K.P.Verman and Director of Amway Indian Enterprises having its office at A-5, Kailash colony, New Delhi- 110048. .......Petitioner. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Mr. Bimal Bohra, S/O Late Jagarnnath Bohra, R/O Mohalla Exhibition Road, Patna, P.S.-Gandhi Maidan, Distt- Patna. .....Opp. Parties. ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Shashi Anugrah Narayan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajit Kr. Ojha, Adv. Miss. Nutan Mishra, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayay, A.P.P. 5 14.03.2011 The complainant has filed three cases against the petitioner Complaint Case No. 2894(C) of 2004, Complaint Case No. 91(C) of 2005 and Complaint Case No. 3276(C) of 2005 under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. In the present complaint case it has been mentioned that the complainant had earlier filed a Complaint Case No. 91(C) of 2005 which was dismissed as the parties had entered into an agreement to resolve the dispute out side the court. It has been stated in the complaint petition that since the dispute could not be resolved this fresh complaint petition on the same allegations is being filed. The order of cognizance in first Case 2894(C) of 2004 was challenged in this Court by filing Cr. Misc. No. 25486 of 2005. The allegations in the three cases Complaint Case No. 2894(C) of 2004, Complaint Case No. 3276(C) of 2005 and the present case are verbatim the same. This court while considering the case on merits after 2 hearing the parties has quashed the order of cognizance passed in Complaint Case No. 2894(C) of 2004. The facts being the same the order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 25486 of 2006, dated 27.08.2010 will cover the facts of the case. Besides what has been observed by the learned Judge, this Court finds repeated complaint made on the same facts, cannot be appreciated, merely on the ground that a matter was pending in this Court, and this Court had passed an order of stay in the second complaint filed. Once stay was granted in Complaint Case No. 91(C) of 2005, another complaint has been filed. Such practices amount to misuse of the provisions of the law. It is apparent that such conduct of a complainant is not justified and amounts to harassment. In view of what has been stated above the order dated 19.01.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 3276(C) of 2005 as far as it concerns the petitioner is quashed. Accordingly this application is allowed. Bhardwaj/ ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)