P. N. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revisional application has been preferred by the petitioners praying for quashing the criminal proceeding being G. R. Case No. 38 of 2003 and the charge-sheet No. 89 of 2003 arising out of Dhantala P. S. Case No. 11 dated 9. 11. 03 now pending in the Court of the learned S. D. J. M. , Ranaghat. ( 2 ) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioners contended that the O. P. No. 2 has lodged a false complaint against the petitioners alleging commission of offence under Sections 147/148/324/448/307 of I. P. C. In the complaint it was stated that the incident took place on 2nd January, 2003 at about 4 p. m. The petitioner No. 2 is an employee of State Poultry Firm, Ranaghat and on 2. 1. 03 he was in his office from 10 a. m. to 5. 30 p. m. and it has been certified by Assistant Director, Animal Resource Development of the said poultry firm. Husband of the O. P. No. 2 is an antisocial and he is creating trouble in that area for which the neighbours and 'para' people filed a mass petition before the O. C. , Dhantala P. S. to take appropriate action against Pankaj Das, the husband of de facto-complainant, O. P. No. 2. The O. P. No. 2 being assisted by her husband has lodged a false complaint to create pressure upon the petitioners alleging false story of assault on Pankaj Das at the relevant time. The doctor's report reveals that there was no external injury on the person of pankaj Das and he was discharged from hospital on 13. 1. 03 with story of assault. There was no such injury which can attract elements of Section 307 of I. P. C. Allegations of raiding their house with a view to assault are totally false. The entire criminal proceeding is based on false complaint and the criminal proceeding should be quashed. ( 3 ) LEARNED Advocate appearing for the State submitted that the stage is not at all fit for quashing the proceeding or discharging the accused petitioners. It is not such a case in which the F. I. R. at its face value does not disclose commission of any offence. After completing investigation the police has already submitted charge-sheet. ( 3 ) LEARNED Advocate appearing for the State submitted that the stage is not at all fit for quashing the proceeding or discharging the accused petitioners. It is not such a case in which the F. I. R. at its face value does not disclose commission of any offence. After completing investigation the police has already submitted charge-sheet. There is no ground and reason to quash the charge-sheet as this Court at this stage would not enter into discussion of evidence like a trial Court of appellate Court. The learned Magistrate may be direction to pass necessary order. ( 4 ) I have duly considered the submissions made by the learned advocates of the parties and perused the revisional application and the annexures made thereto. It appears that the O. P. No. 2 filed a complaint before the learned S. D. J. M. , Ranaghat praying for sending the petition of complaint to O. C. , Dhantala P. S. for investigation under Section 156 (3) of cr. P. C. Learned Magistrate forwarded the said complaint to O. C. , Dhantala p. S. for investigation under Section 156 (3) of Cr. P. C. and on the basis of it dhantala P. S. Case No. 11 dated 9. 1. 03 was started. In the F. I. R. the informant sampa Das i. e. , the present O. P. No. 2 made allegation that on 2. 1,03 at about 4 p. m. these petitioners entered into their house being armed with iron rod, shabal i. e. iron bar, sickle (da), lathi etc. and assaulted her husband pankaj Das mercilessly as a result of which Pankaj Das sustained injuries and he was removed to hospital. It was alleged that his condition is very serious and chance of his survival is remote. It appears that after completing investigation the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet being charge- sheet No. 89 of 2003 in the Court of the learned S. D. J. M. dated 8. 5. 03 which was forwarded by the O. C. , Dhantala P. S. on 20. 5. 03 and the learned S. D. J. M. received the same on 8. 8. 03. ( 5 ) THE Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa and anr. reported in AIR 2002 SC 671 has observed that the High Court can exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. 5. 03 and the learned S. D. J. M. received the same on 8. 8. 03. ( 5 ) THE Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa and anr. reported in AIR 2002 SC 671 has observed that the High Court can exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. to quash a criminal proceeding where the allegations made in the F. I. R. or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. This jurisdiction can be invoked also where the allegations in the F. I. R. and other materials accompanying the F. I. R. do not disclose any cognizable offence and where the allegations made in the F. I. R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is also settled principle that at the initial stage where an application for quashing the criminal proceeding has been filed after submission of charge-sheet the High Court should be cautious and inherent jurisdiction can be exercised only in exceptional cases. It is the law that at such a stage the High Court should not weigh and assess the evidence like a trial Court or appellate Court. If the F. I. R. and charge-sheet makes out prima facie materials, it would not be sufficient for the High Court to quash the criminal proceeding. ( 6 ) HERE I find that on the basis of F. I. R. , Dhantala P. S. Case No. 11 dated 9. 1. 03 was started against the present petitioners under Sections 147/148/447/325 and 307 of I. P. C. and after completing investigation charge- sheet has been submitted under Sections 147/148/448/324/307 of I. P. C. and all these sections are cognizable. Learned Advocate for the petitioners has produced before me copy of injury report which reveals that the doctor made a note that no external injury was found but, doctor also noted statement of patient which runs in the manner "he was assaulted by rod over thigh, chest etc. ". The discharge certificate reveals that injured Pankaj Das was in the hospital from 3. 1. 03 of 13. 1. ". The discharge certificate reveals that injured Pankaj Das was in the hospital from 3. 1. 03 of 13. 1. 03 with history of assault and there was X-ray on chest. At this stage without evidence it cannot be said that the entire allegations were false though nature of injury may indicate that elements of section 307 of I. P. C. are wanting or lacking. ( 7 ) ANOTHER argument of learned Advocate for petitioner was that the petitioner No. 2 was in the office on 2. 1. 03 i. e. , date of incident from 10 a. m. to 5. 30 p. m. and a certificate has been issued by his office boss in that respect. At this stage this Court cannot consider the said certificate and it is a weapon in the hand of petitioner No. 2 to establish this alibi at the time of trial. The alibi taken by defence has to be established in Court in trial and not by producing a document praying for quashing the criminal proceeding when materials in the case diary and the submission of charge-sheet reveals at least some elements against the petitioners. When there is statement of eye witnesses, the Court who would try the case would be the best person to consider whether evidence of eye witnesses are creditworthy regarding involvement of the petitioner No. 2 in the incident or whether alibi taken by petitioner No. 2 is acceptable. Without recording evidence nothing can be assessed or judged regarding presence or absence of petitioner No. 2 at place of occurrence at the relevant time of incident. Therefore, it is not a fit case where this Court should invoke its inherent jurisdiction to quash the impugned criminal proceeding. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, I make it clear that the petitioners are al liberty to agitate all these points in the Courts below at appropriate stages which they agitated in this revisional application. ( 9 ) FURTHER I make it clear that whatever I have stated above or observed should not be considered as opinion regarding merit of the case and the concerned Courts at appropriate stage would act in accordance with law and the learned Courts below would arrive at their own conclusion and would not be guided by the observations made by this Court in this revisional application. ( 10 ) THE revisional application, therefore, having no merit fails and is disposed of in the light of observations as indicated above. ( 11 ) SEND a copy of this order to the learned S. D. J. M. , Ranaghat for information and necessary action. Urgent certified copy be given to the parties, if applied for, expeditiously.