Judgment :- (1) The revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed to quash the proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No. 35 of 2006 arising out of Memari Police Station Case No. 82 of 2006 under Sections 342/323 /307 /376 /511 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan. (2) The case of the petitioners in short is that the petitioners are officials attached to "Paramananda Mission" which is a philanthropic organisation, engaged in various activities to provide education, health care and generally to make the people aware about the art of living. (3) Opposite Party herein, instituted petition of complaint against the petitioners mainly on the ground that she was attached to the activities of the said mission and during her stay in the Ashram, she was subjected to wrongful confinement and assault by the petitioners. (4) Moreover, in the year 1999 as well as in the year 2001, the petitioners tried to commit rape on her and also made attempts to commit murder. Subsequently, the Opposite Party/defacto complainant left the Ashram and she was treated by doctors. Subsequently, she lodged the petition of complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. In terms of direction passed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the above mentioned case was registered by the police and investigation was taken up. Initially the investigation ended in submission of filing report but the defacto complainant raised objection, against such result of the investigation and in terms of direction passed by the Court, further investigation was conducted by police and ultimately charge sheet under the aforesaid provision of law was submitted against the petitioners. (5) The only point requires to be determined is whether this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall interfere with the result of investigation as the police has submitted charge sheet against the petitioners after further investigation in terms of direction passed by the Court. (6) Before meeting the rival contentions advanced by the learned Advocates appearing on the respective parties, it will be appropriate to highlight the following facts. (7) The petition of complaint was instituted by the Opposite Party/ Defacto Complainant before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan on 25.7.2005. (6) Before meeting the rival contentions advanced by the learned Advocates appearing on the respective parties, it will be appropriate to highlight the following facts. (7) The petition of complaint was instituted by the Opposite Party/ Defacto Complainant before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan on 25.7.2005. The allegation against the petitioners such as, attempt to commit rape and attempt to commit murder, as per the recital in the petition of complaint continued for the period from 1999 to 2001. In the petition of complaint, it is stated that the first attempt to violate the person of Opposite Party took place in the night during the year 1999. No date, save and except, mentioning the year is appearing in the petition of complaint. The second attempt to commit the same act took place in the year 2001. Here again no specific date is mentioned in the petition of complaint. (8) It may.be pointed out that the case was initially registered at the police station on 13.4.2006. After conducting investigation, the police officer submitted final report on the ground that the case is false; Thereafter, as per the direction of the Court, the police officer conducted further investigation and again submitted report in final form on the ground that there is no evidence and that the case was instituted on mistake of facts. Thereafter, another round of further investigation was conducted by police in terms of the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 20.7.2007. This time the police officer submitted charge sheet against the petitioners for aforesaid provisions of law. (9) Learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners submitted that there is no material collected by the police officer conducting investigation, which justified submission of charge sheet. For such serious allegation for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 and 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code along with other provisions of law, the Opposite Party moved the Court six years after the alleged occurrence. The allegations against the petitioners are out and out baseless and framed by the Opposite Party only to harass the petitioners in order to ruin their reputation. No evidence worthwhile in support of the charge under Section 376/511 and Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code could be collected by police. The allegations against the petitioners are out and out baseless and framed by the Opposite Party only to harass the petitioners in order to ruin their reputation. No evidence worthwhile in support of the charge under Section 376/511 and Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code could be collected by police. The bare testimony of the defacto complainant cannot by itself be a ground for continuation of the proceeding particularly when such allegations are raised long after the alleged occurrence took place and specially when no explanation is forthcoming as to why there is inordinate delay to institute the case before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. In support of his contention, learned Advocates for the petitioners has referred to the decision of Supreme Court in Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal and Anr. reported in 2008 AIR SCW 5881. (10) Refuting the argument advanced by the learned Advocates for the petitioners, the learned Advocates appearing for the Opposite Party submitted that mere delay by itself cannot be a ground to throw out the prosecution case at its threshold. The delay, if any, is required to be explained at the time of trial. It is further submitted that the version of the defacto complainant about the occurrence cannot be ignored solely on the ground that there is no corroborating evidence. It is further submitted that it is not open to the police officer, who initially submitted final report to question the mental balance of the defacto complainant in the absence of any medical report. (11) In support of his contentions, learned Advocates for the Opposite Party has referred to the following decisions :-1. Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala and Ors. reported in (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cr) 9. 2. Central Bureau of Investigation v. K. M. Sharan reported in (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cr) 430. 3. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Ors. reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1393 :1996 C Cr LR (SC) 50. (12) There cannot be any dispute to the legal proposition that the power of the High Court to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is required to be exercised ex debito justitiae. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Ors. reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1393 :1996 C Cr LR (SC) 50. (12) There cannot be any dispute to the legal proposition that the power of the High Court to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is required to be exercised ex debito justitiae. While exercising the inherent power the High Court shall refrain from entering into exhaustive discussion and shall refuse to embark upon enquiry in order to ascertain the veracity or truthfulness about the allegations as raised in the F.I.R. and the charge sheet. (13) So far as the present case is concerned, I have already pointed out that twice after due investigation, the police officer submitted final report. On the first occasion the final report was submitted on the ground that the case is false. On the next occasion final report was submitted on the ground of mistake of fact. This brings us to the point as to the scope of further investigation. In terms of provision under sub Section (8) to Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further investigation is permissible after submission of report in terms of provisions under sub Section (2) to Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (14) The Honble Supreme Court in K. Chandrasekharv. State of Kerala and Ors. reported in (1998)5 SCC 223 held as follows : "24. The dictionary meaning of further (when used as an adjective) is" additional; more;supplemental". "Further" investigation therefore is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or re-investigation to be started abinitio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether. In drawing this conclusion we have also drawn inspiration from the fact that sub-section (8) clearly envisages that on completion of further investigation the investigating agency has to forward to the Magistrate a "further" report or reports-and not fresh report or reports- regarding the further evidence obtained during such investigation." (15) The above noted decision of the Honble Supreme Court was quoted with approval by the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Ramachandran v. R. Uday Kumar and Ors. reported in 2008 AIR SCW 5469 : (2008)2 C Cr LR (SC) 365; where the Honble Supreme Court held that purpose of further investigation in terms of sub-Section (8) to Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not fresh investigation or re-investigation. (16) In K. Chandrasekharv. State of Kerala and Ors. (supra), the Honble Supreme Court explained the scope of further investigation in terms of sub-Section (8) to Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and held that the report which is required to be forwarded must contain further evidence obtained during such investigation. (17) In this connection the decision of Honble Supreme Court in Fakhruddin Ahmadv. State of Uttatanchal and Anr. (supra), the Honble Supreme Court held that the High Court ought to have taken into consideration the materials which was placed before the Magistrate. It will be appropriate to set out para 20 of the aforesaid decision : "20. Bearing in mind the above legal position, we are convinced that the High Court was not justified in dismissing the petition on the afore-stated ground. In our opinion, in order to arrive at a conclusion, whether or not the appellant had made out a case for quashing of the charge-sheet against him, the High Court ought to have taken into consideration the material which was placed before the Magistrate For dismissal of the petition, the High Court had to record a finding that the uncontroverted allegations, as made, establish a prima facie case against the appellant. In our judgment, the decision of the High Court dismissing the petition filed by the appellant on the ground that it is not permissible for it to look into the materials placed before the Magistrate is not in consonance with the broad parameters, enumerated in a series of decisions of this Court and briefly noted above, to be applied while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Code for discharge and, therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable." (18) Being directed by this Court, the learned Advocates for the State produced the Case Diary, which contains the materials, collected by the police officer conducting further investigation. I have already pointed out that further investigation upon which charge sheet was subsequently submitted was initiated on the basis of direction passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by his order dated. 20.7.2007. I have already pointed out that further investigation upon which charge sheet was subsequently submitted was initiated on the basis of direction passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by his order dated. 20.7.2007. (19) During further investigation, the mother of the Opposite Party defacto complainant Smt. Gita Rani Mondal was examined and her statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She has categorically stated that she is not aware as to why her daughter has instituted the case. She has stated in her statement that the defacto complainant went to the Ashram in search of work. She returned to her mothers house after some time and disclosed that she will not return to the Ashram as she was not treated well by the persons of the Ashram. It is evident that before the mother, the petitioner did not disclose any occurrence as to attempt to commit rape or attempt to murder. It is also stated in the statement of the mother of the defacto complainant that petitioner became mentally imbalanced particularly after her return from the Ashram. This statement was recorded on 10.8.2007. The statement of Swapan Mondal, which was recorded on 10.8.2007 under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, indicates that he is the brother of the defacto complainant. In his statement also there is no mention about any occurrence as to attempt to commit rape or attempt to commit murder by the petitioners. It is onty stated that defacto complainant mentioned that she was not treated well by the inmates of the Ashram and as such she is not willing to return to the Ashram. The statement of Archana Mondal was also recorded on 10.8.2007 under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The witness states that she is attached to the Ashram and the defacto complainant was employed in the Ashram but due to her unnatural behaviour, she was sent back. This witness did not support the case of the petitioner. The statement of Ranjan Mallick, Ex-Pradhan was recorded on 13.9.2008 under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This witness also did not support the prosecution case and according to him the defacto complainant submitted a written complaint to Panchayat indicating about non-payment of her dues. However, the said document could not be collected by police officer conducting investigation. The statement of Ranjan Mallick, Ex-Pradhan was recorded on 13.9.2008 under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This witness also did not support the prosecution case and according to him the defacto complainant submitted a written complaint to Panchayat indicating about non-payment of her dues. However, the said document could not be collected by police officer conducting investigation. Save and except, those statements as discussed above, there is no other evidence collected by police conducting further investigation to show any further materials collected during further investigation justifying submission of charge sheet. (20) My attention was drawn to the opinion of learned Public Prosecutor and infact the charge sheet is submitted on the basis of the written opinion of the Public Prosecutor, Burdwan. It is not clear to me as to why the opinion of the learned Public Prosecutor was at all required by the police officer conducting investigation. The purpose of investigation is to collect evidence in order to ascertain whether the recital in the F.I.R. is supported by any evidence. Opinion by the Public Prosecutor cannot be termed as evidence collected during investigation and certainly cannot be the basis for submission of charge sheet. (21) I have gone through the materials available in the Case Diary and it appears that the defacto complainant by her written communication dated 19.2.2007 intimated the officer-in-charge that she is not in a position to produce witness. (22) It further appears from her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on 19.2.2007 wherein she disclosed that she is no more interested to proceed with the case. (23) In this background of the matter and following the decision of the Supreme Court in Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal and Anr. (supra), the recital in the F.I.R. is required to be considered. The allegations took place in the year 1999 and the petition of complaint was instituted six years after in the year 2005. The contention of the learned Advocates for the Opposite Party that the recital in the F.I.R. must be taken into consideration while exercising the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be examined after considering the entire materials. The contention of the learned Advocates for the Opposite Party that the recital in the F.I.R. must be taken into consideration while exercising the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be examined after considering the entire materials. It remains totally unexplained about the inordinate delay of six years in lodging the F.I.R. There is nothing to show that after she left the Ashram immediately after the incident, which took place in the year 2001; she was under the control or under any threat by the petitioners. (24) This being the position, the inordinate delay in instituting the case raising such grave and serious allegations against the petitioners must be taken into consideration. Merely because the allegations as to attempt to commit rape has been raised by the defacto complainant and merely because charge sheet is submitted after further investigation, then it cannot be stated that this Court shall ignore the totality of the entire position. (25) The statement of the defacto complainant given before the several persons, particularly to her mother and brother completely rules out the possibility of commission of offence either under Section 307 or under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. (26) It is evident from the materials that the Opposite Party/defecto complainant has taken different contradictory and conflicting stand about the occurrence. Before the Panchayat Pradhan her main grievance was nonpayment of money. She has not stated about any offence committed by the petitioners, which is the basis of her petition of complaint before the learned Court below. (27) It may be pointed out in this context that while exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court can not adopt a mechanical approach and is required to consider the entire matter in its proper perspective. Otherwise the Courts will be overburdened with frivolous and vexatious litigations. (28) On consideration of the entire matter, I am of the view that the recital in the F.I.R. by itself, in the fact situation of this case, would not be sufficient to refuse to invoke inherent power of this Court. (29) The decision referred to by the learned Advocate for the Opposite Party is, in my view, would not be applicable in the fact situation of this particular case. (29) The decision referred to by the learned Advocate for the Opposite Party is, in my view, would not be applicable in the fact situation of this particular case. The contention that in order to establish a charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the statement of the prosecutrix is to be considered in its proper perspective and the Court should not insist on corroboration on each and every aspect in my view, will be applicable in the fact situation of a particular case. So far as the present case is concerned, a victim lady, who according to her, was attempted to be violated on repeated occasions by the petitioners, who also made attempts to kill her, waited for nearly six years to institute the case. Her entire conduct is so self-contradictory that it does not inspire confidence in the minds of the Court about the veracity of the recital in the petition of complaint. (30) In view of the peculiar position of the case, I am of the view that bare recital in the F.I.R. is not sufficient to ignore the plea of the petitioners that they are dragged in a criminal case only to cause harassment and to ruin their reputation. (31) When High Court finds that the litigation is the outcome in order to cause harassment to the petitioners, then the High Court should interfere in order to quash the proceeding, which is now pending before the learned Court below. (32) In the result the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is disposed of with the direction that the above mentioned proceeding, now pending before the Court of leaned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan is quashed. (33) There shall be no order as to costs. (34) Criminal Section is directed to forward a copy of the order to the learned Court below. (35) Criminal Section is further directed to supply urgent Photostat copy of the order to the parties as and when applied for. (36) Case Diary be returned.