JUDGMENT Jay Sengupta, J. - This is an application praying for quashing of a proceeding under Sections 308, 323, 325, 354 and 447 of the Penal Code. 2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as follows. The present case is only a counterblast to a complaint which had been earlier lodged by the petitioners. However, no criminal case was registered on the basis of the same. While some of the accused were granted anticipatory bail by an order of this Court, the petitioners' prayers for anticipatory bail were rejected by an order dated 03.11.2019 passed by this Court in CRM 10382 of 2019. The petitioners are absolutely innocent and did not commit any offence. The impugned proceeding has been maliciously instituted on behalf of the other side. 3. I have heard the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and have perused the revision petition. 4. It appears that this Court had earlier rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail of the present petitioners in connection with the present case. 5. The allegations contained in the First Information Report appear to be very grave. A prima facie case is made out against the petitioners as would be evident from a plain reading of the First Information Report. 6. The contentions of the petitioners relate to disputed questions of fact, which can be only decided at the time of trial. 7. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed. 8. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 9. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.