JUDGMENT : Rumi Kumari Phukan, J. Heard Mr. MH Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, for the State/respondent No.1. None appears on behalf of the respondent No.2, despite Notice. 2. The petitioner herein has sought for quashment of the proceedings pertaining to G.R. Case No.896/2014 under Section 294/506 IPC arising out of Juria PS Case No.96/2014 pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon. 3. The petitioner herein was an employee of Dagaon DPHC and while serving in the said PHC along with Doctors, one Asha-Karmi /respondent No.2 herein was creating disturbing situations in the office on many occasions and ultimately, due to her unruly behaviour, the officers had to took steps/actions against her. As a result of such action, she was released from her job with effect from 10.01.2014. Since thereafter, she was filing one after another cases against the different employees and doctors of the said PHC to put pressure upon them. 4. On 25.03.2014, she filed an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Dagaon Outpost with the allegation that the present accused-petitioner and two others rebutted her in obscene languages while she went to the office demanding her cheque of Rs.1,400/- and they ousted her from the office by pulling her hair. The said FIR was registered as Juria PS Case No.96/2014 and after conclusion of the investigation, police submitted Final Report by noting thereof that no case is made out against the accused persons as there was no any other witnesses in support of her allegation. 5. Against such Final Report, the informant/respondent No.2 filed a protest petition on the basis of which, learned court below directed for re-investigation of the matter and in turn, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused-petitioner on 20.10.2014 and the learned trial court also took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner. 6. Challenging the entire proceedings pertaining to the said G.R. Case No. 896/2014, present petition has been preferred for quashment of the entire proceedings. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 6. Challenging the entire proceedings pertaining to the said G.R. Case No. 896/2014, present petition has been preferred for quashment of the entire proceedings. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. Referring to the documents that have been annexed, it is contended that the respondent No.2/informant herself had created unruly situations in the office for which the authority concerned was compelled to release her from the job and as a result of which, said lady started to file complaint one after another. 8. It is to be noted that on the same FIR, the investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer and finally submitted Final Report stating that there is no case against the accused persons, but yet on the basis of the protest petition filed by the informant, the court below has directed for reinvestigation of the case, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the court. Moreover, learned trial court took cognizance of the offence on the basis of the charge-sheet that was filed after re-investigation of the case. It is the settled proposition of law that there is no scope for order of re-investigation by a lower court and Magistrate is not allowed to direct for re-investigation of a case and that only the higher court can direct for such re-investigation in extreme and rare occasions. That irregularity has already crept up in the present petition. 9. On the basis of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the subsequent charge-sheet on the basis of which re-investigation is ordered is nonest in law. 10. On the next, considering all the materials in the Case Diary, it reveals that none of the witnesses and employees of the office where the incident took place, have not supported the allegation of the informant in any manner and in that event even if the case is proceeded for trial, it would be a futile exercise as there is no sufficient evidence to prove the allegation raised in the FIR. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the meantime, parties involved have already settled their dispute by entering into a deed of compromise by way of an affidavit dated 24.04.2019, wherein it is stated that the respondent No.2/informant is not interested to proceed further with the matter. 12. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the meantime, parties involved have already settled their dispute by entering into a deed of compromise by way of an affidavit dated 24.04.2019, wherein it is stated that the respondent No.2/informant is not interested to proceed further with the matter. 12. Taking note of all above, it can be fairly held that the entire proceedings pertaining to Juria PS Case No.96/2014 is liable to be interfered into, which is vitiated one, for the reasons stated above. 13. Resultantly, the entire proceedings of G.R. Case No. 896/2014 arising out of Juria PS Case No.96/2014 is hereby set aside and quashed. 14. Consequently, the petition stands allowed. 15. Return the LCR along with the Case Diary.