JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned A.P.P. for State and Mr. D.D. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 10.07.2009 passed by the learned A.C.J.M. Rajmahal, in P.C.R. Case No. 79 of 2009, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken under Section 506 I.P.C. against the petitioner No. 1 and also the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner nos. 2 and 3, under Sections 323 and 435/34 of the I.P.C. pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M. Rajmahal. 3. The complaint was filed by the O.P. No. 2 stating therein that for the offence alleged to have taken place on 14.02.2009 at hours 10.30 hrs, the complainant went to School and asked for progress of construction of school building as bout 1.5 lakhs has been withdrawn 5-6 months ago and alleged that accused persons have misappropriated about Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac rupees) Government money and has also threatened to the complainant to drag them in a false case. It is further alleged that in the evening at about 7.00 P.M. the accused nos. 3 and 4 came and assaulted him by means of fists and slap and the accused no. 3 set fire in the hut of animals and hence the present case was instituted. 4. Mr. Gautam Kumar, at the outset submits that one of the accused namely Tiloka Devi has moved before this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 590 of 2014, which was allowed by terms of order dated 17.12.2014, whereby the cognizance order so far as the petitioner Tiloka Devi is concerned, has been quashed. He submits that the case of petitioner no. 1 here also is on identical footing. He further submits that so far as the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, those Sections are not at all attracted, on which, cognizance has been taken against them. He submits that Tiloka Devi has filed a case against the O.P. No. 2, as contained in Annexure-2 to this petition, wherein these petitioners have been shown as witnesses in that complaint and only to harass the petitioners by way of malicious prosecution, the present complaint has been filed against the petitioners. 5. Mr. He submits that Tiloka Devi has filed a case against the O.P. No. 2, as contained in Annexure-2 to this petition, wherein these petitioners have been shown as witnesses in that complaint and only to harass the petitioners by way of malicious prosecution, the present complaint has been filed against the petitioners. 5. Mr. D.D. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that there are allegations against the petitioners, as such, this Court may not exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the matter at this stage. 6. It is an admitted fact that in the identical situation, case of one of the accused Tiloka Devi has been allowed, by order dated 17.12.2014 passed in Cr. M.P. No. 590 of 2014 and the case of the petitioner no. 1 is fully covered with that judgment. It is also an admitted fact that Tiloka Devi has filed a complaint against the O.P. No. 2, in which, these petitioners were shown as witnesses and thereafter this complaint has been lodged against the present petitioners. It appears that this is a case of counterblast against the petitioners, which amounts to abuse of the process of Court. Now the charge has been framed and prosecution has been proceeded with and the Court comes to the conclusion that there is an abuse of the process of the Court, as such, this Court can interfere in this matter. 7. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar and Others vs. Madanlal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 , wherein in Para-29, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court and secure the ends of justice.” 8. In view of the above discussions and reasoned analysis, it is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, order dated 10.07.2009 passed by the learned A.C.J.M. Rajmahal, in P.C.R. Case No. 79 of 2009, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken under Section 506 I.P.C. against the petitioner No. 1 and also the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner nos. 2 and 3, under Sections 323 and 435/34 of the I.P.C. pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M. Rajmahal, is hereby, quashed. 9. This criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and disposed of.