JUDGMENT : SUVRA GHOSH, J. 1. The petitioner has sought quashing of proceeding being G.R. case no. 471 of 2023 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bishnupur, Bankura on the ground that he has been falsely implicated after switch of political allegiance on 9th January, 2019. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that thirteen criminal cases have been foisted against the petitioner from January, 2019. In the present case, though charge sheet has been submitted under sections 143/189/323/332/353/354A/505(1)/500/506/509/109/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the said offences have not been made out either in the complaint or during investigation. The charge sheet demonstrates that on-duty police personnel were pushed by the mob as a result of which two constables fell on the ground and sustained minor injuries. The FIR is an abuse of the process of law and the proceeding has been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to wreck vengeance against him since he is a member of the rival political party. 3. Referring to Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution of India, learned counsel has emphasised on the right to speech of the petitioner who was addressing the women of a self-help group on the relevant date and was neither member of an unlawful assembly, nor was indulging in provocative speech which may have led to mob unrest resulting in breach of peace and tranquillity. The petitioner has only raised his voice against the high-handed attitude and conduct of the Inspector-in-charge, Sonamukhi Police Station and had no personal or political vendetta against him. The FIR was lodged at an unexplained delay of a couple of days. The Inspector-in-charge was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time and though he is the person aggrieved in this case, the complaint was lodged before him. 4. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the authorities in Haji Iqbal alias Bala v/s. State of U.P. and Others reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 946, Kuldip Yadav and Others v/s. State of Bihar reported in (2011) 5 SCC 324 , and Mahmood Ali and Others v/s. State of U.P. and Others in Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023 in support of his contention. 5. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has produced a pen-drive containing recording of the statement made by the petitioner and has submitted that the entire speech of the petitioner who is a law maker is absolutely derogatory. 6. Placing reliance on the authorities in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v/s. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401 , Tapas Kumar Khan v/s. State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in 2007 SCC OnLine Cal 472, Renu Kumari v/s. Sanjay Kumar and Others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 346 , Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Another v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781 and Sachchinanda Singh v/s. State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in (2008) SCC OnLine Cal 185, learned counsel has submitted that evidentiary material collected during investigation discloses a prima facie case of commission of the alleged offences. The prosecution cannot fail merely on the ground of malafide. 7. I have considered the rival submission made on behalf of the parties, material on record including the recording stored in the pen-drive and the law on the point. 8. At the outset, it is necessary to indicate that Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution of India deal with powers, privileges, etc., of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees thereof and powers, privileges, etc., of the House of Legislatures and of the members and committees thereof respectively and with freedom of speech in the Parliament/Legislature and as such, have no manner of application in the present case. 9. Charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner under sections 143/189/323/332/353/354A/505(1)/500/506/509/109/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Each of the said allegations vis-à-vis the material on record disclosed in the complaint as well as during investigation need to be dealt with in order to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the prosecution should continue against the petitioner. 10. Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly. Member of an unlawful assembly has been defined in section 142 as hereunder:- “142. Being member of unlawful assembly.- Whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly.” 11. Member of an unlawful assembly has been defined in section 142 as hereunder:- “142. Being member of unlawful assembly.- Whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly.” 11. The petitioner was addressing the members of a self-help group who had gathered for a deputation in front of Manickbazar Gram Panchayat Office. The petitioner was not part of the rally and went to the place of occurrence at Maheshpur More after the rally reached there. Since the assembly of the members of the self-help group cannot be termed as an unlawful assembly as defined in section 141 of the Code and also since the petitioner was not a member of the said assembly and reached the spot and addressed the assembly only after the assembly reached the place of occurrence, he cannot be held liable under section 143 of the Code. 12. “Section 189.- Threat of injury to public servant.- Whoever holds out any threat of injury to any public servant, or to any person in whom he believes that public servant to be interested, for the purpose of inducing that public servant to do any act, or to forbear or delay to do any act, connected with the exercise of the public functions of such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” 13. The recording stored in the pen-drive demonstrates that the petitioner held the Inspector-in-charge, Sonamukhi Police Station responsible for the plight and suffering of the members of the self-help group and no threat of injury to the Inspector-in-charge for the purpose of inducing him to do any act or to forbear or delay to do any act connected with the exercise of his public function is reflected. 14. Section 323 prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. Section 321 defines “voluntarily causing hurt” as follows:- “Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said voluntarily to cause hurt”. 15. Section 323 prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. Section 321 defines “voluntarily causing hurt” as follows:- “Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said voluntarily to cause hurt”. 15. In the present case, the charge sheet reveals that two on-duty constables fell on the ground on being pushed by the mob and sustained minor injuries on their persons. The FIR or the charge sheet is bereft of any allegation against the petitioner under sections 321/323. 16. Section 332 deals with voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty and section 353 deals with assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty. No such allegation has been made out against the petitioner either in the FIR or during investigation. 17. Section 354A defines sexual harassment as (i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or (ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or (iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or (iv) making sexually coloured remarks. It is clearly depicted in the pen-drive recording that no such act as alleged was done by the petitioner who in fact spoke in support and in favour of the members of the group and assured help/assistance. 18. Section 505(1) refers to statements conducing to public mischief and section 506 deals with punishment for criminal intimidation. The recording does not even remotely suggest commission of such act by the petitioner. 19. Section 509 envisages that “Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman shall punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.” No such allegation has been made out against the petitioner. 20. Though it appears that two police personnel were injured on being pushed by the mob, the material available on record does not suggest that such act of the mob was instigated or abetted by the petitioner. Therefore allegation under section 109 of the Code does not lie. 20. Though it appears that two police personnel were injured on being pushed by the mob, the material available on record does not suggest that such act of the mob was instigated or abetted by the petitioner. Therefore allegation under section 109 of the Code does not lie. Also, since the petitioner is the sole accused herein, section 34 of the Code has no manner of application. 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the authority in Renu Kumari (supra) has observed that the powers of the High Court under section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision, in exercise of this power, is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy. The allegations of malafides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings. Such proposition has been echoed in the authorities in Monica Kumar (supra) and Neeharika Infrastructure (supra). In the authorities in Sacchinanda Singh (supra) and Tapas Kumar Khan (supra) this Court has held that when evidentiary material collected during investigation discloses a prima facie case of commission of alleged offences against the accused/petitioner, the allegation of malafide is of no consequence and cannot be the basis for quashing of the proceedings. Also, the Court cannot enquire as to the reliability, genuineness, sufficiency, acceptability or otherwise of the allegations and test the same. At the same time, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a subsequent judgment in Haji Iqbal (supra) has observed as hereunder:- “Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.” 22. In the authority in Mahmood Ali (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred to the parameters laid down for quashing of FIR in the case of State of Haryana v/s. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 . The third and seventh parameters are required to be set out:- (3) “Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (7) Where a criminal proceeding in manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 23. (7) Where a criminal proceeding in manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 23. In the case in hand, it appears that the petitioner switched political allegiance on 9th January, 2019 and 13 criminal cases were lodged against him since January, 2019, the first FIR being lodged on 10th January, 2019. The recording in the pen-drive on the anvil of which the prosecution has made his entire argument demonstrates that the petitioner arrived at a gathering of the members of the self-help group who were already making their demonstration and shouting slogans even prior to his arrival. The petitioner sympathized with the cause of the group, pacified them and assured necessary assistance/intervention for redressal of their grievance. In course of his speech, the petitioner held the Inspector-in-charge, Sonamukhi P.S. responsible for the plight of the group and raised his voice against his alleged conduct. The Inspector-in-charge was not present at the spot at the relevant time. Till the petitioner left the spot, no mob unrest or alleged attack upon police personnel present there could be seen from the video footage. The petitioner was seen leaving the place while the group continued to assemble there and listen to a speaker on the microphone. The group was happy with the assurance given by the petitioner and was seen clapping. There was no sign of agitation or unrest among them. Untoward incident, if any, which may have occurred after the petitioner left the place of occurrence cannot, in the facts and circumstances of the case, be attributed to the petitioner. 24. In the said backdrop, taking into account the overall circumstances leading to initiation of the case as well as material collected in the course of investigation, particularly the recording stored in the pen-drive, this Court is of the view that the case falls within parameter nos. 3 and 7 of Bhajan Lal (supra) and the petitioner has been arraigned in a frivolous and vexatious proceeding which is malafide and has been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on him. The allegations made out in the FIR read with the evidence collected in course of investigation do not disclose commission of any of the offences as alleged. 25. The allegations made out in the FIR read with the evidence collected in course of investigation do not disclose commission of any of the offences as alleged. 25. In the result, I am inclined to hold that allowing the proceeding to continue shall be an abuse of the process of law. 26. C.R.R. 3604 of 2023 is allowed. 27. The connected applications being CRAN 1 of 2023 and CRAN 2 of 2024 are disposed of. 28. The proceeding being G.R. case no. 471 of 2023 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bishnupur, Bankura is quashed. 29. The petitioner be set at liberty at once and discharged from his bail bond. 30. There shall however be no order as to costs. 31. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bishnupur, Bankura for information and necessary action. 32. Urgent certified website copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance with the usual formalities.