JUDGMENT : Subhendu Samanta, J. 1. This is an application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure for quashing a proceeding being charge sheet No. 221 of 2017 corresponding to GR Case No. 24 of 2017 arising out of Durgapur PS Case No. 11 of 2017 dated 4th January 2017 u/s 341/323/307/420/506/34 of IPC now pending before the court of Learned Additional District Judge Durgapur, being sessions case No. 163 of 2017. 2. The fact of the instant case as demonstrated by the petitioner is as follows: The OP No. 2 filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court which was registered as WP No. 19427 (W) of 2017/2016 challenging the alleged illegal action of one Doctor Asish Chatterjee, Senior Deputy Director, DSP hospital Durgapur and also against a report of Police Commissioner/Commissioner of Police Assansole, Durgapur Police Commissionerate dated 11.02.2016 wherein they are opined that the complaint of the OP 2 could not substantiated during inquiry in view of discharge/ medical certificate issued by DSP hospital. 3. The case of the complainant/ OP 2 before the commissioner of police was as follows: He stated that on 01.09.2012 when he went to his in laws house to perform his duty and obligation as husband of the accused/petitioner No. 1, at Gopal Math, Jagarbandu plot, at about 18 Hrs, the accused persons did not give him any respect as son-in-law, nor was he served with food with shelter. He remaind on the stare case. At about 8:00a.m. on 2nd September 2012, accused No. 1 and 2 with the instigation of mother-in-law and brother-in-law, kept complainant tightening of hands and legs with rope and thereafter they jointly poured poison in the mouth of the complaint and he became unconscious. Thereafter he was brought to DSP Hospital for treatment by the accused persons and admitted him without giving intimation to the complainants mother, brother and other near relative. On 3rd September, 2012 accused No. 2 at about 11:00 am informed the complainant’s younger brother Sushanta Chakraborty, about the said incident. Thereafter he was brought to DSP Hospital for treatment by the accused persons and admitted him without giving intimation to the complainants mother, brother and other near relative. On 3rd September, 2012 accused No. 2 at about 11:00 am informed the complainant’s younger brother Sushanta Chakraborty, about the said incident. The complainant however, was discharged from the hospital on 04.09.2012 at about 04:00 p.m. It is also the complainant’s case that admission under DSP Hospital is totally under the cloud of ill intentions of the part of the accused persons because they did neither inform the nearby police station of the occurrence nor followed the proper procedure of admission of complainant in the hospital. In the said writ petition, the opposite No. 2 filed a Xerox copy of discharged certificate of DSP Hospital which belied the story of purporting/ pouring poison in his mouth by the accused persons. 4. The said writ petition was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Order dated 15 of September 2016 with a finding and observation that having regard to the lapse of time between the alleged incident and the date when the commissioner was approached as also fact that the OP 2 did not the approach the OC of the Local PS earlier. Thereafter the OP 2 filed a complaint u/s 156(3) of the Cr.PC. before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Durgapur which contained similar allegations made before the commissioner of police Asansole. The said complaint was forwarded to the OC Durgapur PS on the basis of which Durgapur PS case No. 11 of 2017 was started. Subsequently, a charge sheet in the said case being charge-sheet no. 221 of 2017 was submitted on the basis of the investigation against the petitioner herein u/s 341/342/323/307/420/526/34 of IPC. It is the further case of the present petitioners that the charge sheet does not contained any seizure or any injury report and prepared in a perfunctory manner. 5. Hence this revision. 6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Bidyut Kiran Mukherjee argued that the petitioner No. 1 and the OP No. 2 married each other by performing Hindu Rites and subsequently getting the said marriage registered under Special Marriage Act on 11th of December 2011, after both of them got their earlier marriage dissolved by proper decree of divorce in accordance with law. 7. Mr. Bidyut Kiran Mukherjee argued that the petitioner No. 1 and the OP No. 2 married each other by performing Hindu Rites and subsequently getting the said marriage registered under Special Marriage Act on 11th of December 2011, after both of them got their earlier marriage dissolved by proper decree of divorce in accordance with law. 7. Mr. Mukherjee further contended that both the parties had their off-springs of earlier marriage. The daughter of earlier marriage of the present petitioner No. 1 is staying under the custody prayer of petitioner No 1 and similarly the son of OP No. 2 of his earlier marriage is staying with the earlier wife under her care and custody. 8. Mr. Mukherjee further argued that before the Marriage with the OP 2 petitioner No 1 was appointed as an assistant teacher on 13.08.2010 at Bonsonka High School through school service commission. At the time of marriage, it was agreed between the members of family of OP No. 2 and petitioner No 1 that petitioner No.1 shall attainted school from Asansole by train which was only 8 Km away from Gopalmath i.e. parental residence of Petitioner No. 1 and she shall remained her matrimonial home at Asansole only on Saturday and Sunday. According to such arrangement the petitioner No. 1 started coming to her matrimonial home at Asansole with her daughter every Saturday and Sunday. But it appeared to the petitioner No. 1 that when he went to her matrimonial home with her daughter. She was abused with filthy languages and was pressurised by the OP 2 and his family leave daughter to her father’s house for which, ultimately, the petitioner No 1 had to start staying with the her father’s house at Gopalmath. However to minimise the dispute, the petitioner No. 1 afterwards agreed the proposal of OP 2 and started attending school through Asansole--Suri bus service by excepting immense pain and difficulty. 9. Considering the situation the father of the petitioner No. 1 (petitioner No. 2) requested the OP 2 to allow petitioner No.1 to attained school by train from Gopalmath. The OP 2 had agreed to the proposal on condition that the 50% of salary of petitioner No. 1 has to be paid to the OP No. 2. 10. Mr. Mukherjee further argued that of such premises the petitioner /OP 2 started snatching the salary of the petitioner no. The OP 2 had agreed to the proposal on condition that the 50% of salary of petitioner No. 1 has to be paid to the OP No. 2. 10. Mr. Mukherjee further argued that of such premises the petitioner /OP 2 started snatching the salary of the petitioner no. 1 and forcefully snatched the ATM card of petitioner No. 1. He also threatened the petitioner No. 1 to the effect that if she did not pay him half portion of her monthly salary every month, he will have an order of court for payment of her entire salary. 11. Mr. Mukherjee further argued that the situation became more worse when the OP 2 started coming to school of petitioner No. 1 and malign her in all wage before her colleagues. In such situation the petitioner No. 1 filed a matrimonial suit u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act (MAT Suit No. 244 of 2014) before the Learned Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Durgapur. 12. Mr. Mukherjee further argued that the OP 2 being an Advocate appeared before the Learned Additional District judge, in the MAT Suit and contested the MAT Suit by filing written statement. The OP No. 2 also filed an application u/ 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for getting maintenance and litigation cost. On the basis of the said application MISC Case No. 2 of the 2015 was registered and it has been alleged in the said Misc Case that the present petitioner No. 1 and 2 has mis-behaved with the OP 2 at their matrimonial house on the relevant date, on the basis of which the instant criminal proceedings was initiated. During the hearing of the said Misc Case, Doctor Asish Chatterjee, under whose supervision the OP 2 was treated in the DSP hospital, appeared as witness and his evidence was recorded. The discharge certificate issued by the DSP hospital on 04.09.2012 was also submitted before the court and it was marked as Exhibit –A. Mr. Mukherjee further argued that the said Misc Case was rejected by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, being aggrieved by the said order and being a counter blust of MAT Suit the present OP no. 2 has preferred the instant criminal proceedings. 13. Mr. Mukherjee further argued that the present OP No. 2 being the Advocate tried to harass the present petitioner at utmost level. Mr. 2 has preferred the instant criminal proceedings. 13. Mr. Mukherjee further argued that the present OP No. 2 being the Advocate tried to harass the present petitioner at utmost level. Mr. Mukherjee further argued that the present petitioners obtained the order of bail u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with the instant criminal proceeding from the court of Learned Sessions Judge Burdwan, against the said order the OP No. 2 moved before this Court u/s 439 (2) Cr.PC. which was registered as CRM 1605 of 2017. The said CRM was heard and dismissed by the Division Bench of this court. Mr. Mukherjee further contended that the malign act of the present OP No. 2 also can be very well assessed from two malicious prosecution initiated by him before the Learned SDJM Suri in ICC No. 385 of 2016 and ICC No. 427 of 2016. 14. Mr. Mukherjee finally argued that the instant criminal proceeding initiated by the OP No. 2 is baseless and malicious and was filed only to harass the present petitioner No. 1 and his family members for the purpose to settle the matrimonial dispute between them. The only motive behind the institution of the proceeding to harass the present petitioner no. 1 and to compel her to withdraw the divorce case and to squeeze money by black-mailing her. Mr. Mukherjee argued that the statements in the FIR are vague and concocted. The police, during the course of investigation has not recorded the statement of available witnesses regarding the alleged commission of offence. The statement as recorded by the police does not disclose any offence as stated in the FIR. 15. Mr. Mukherjee further argued that the FIR disclosed about 2 discharge certificate one was duly exhibited before the Learned Additional District Judges Court and another was received by the present OP no. 2 by way of a RTI application. The IO did not conduct any investigation regarding the fact of which discharge certificate is correct. Mr. Mukherjee further contended that the IO has not disclose any report regarding the earlier investigation conducted by the police authority through Police commissionerate Asansol. Finally Mr. Mukherjee argued that the instant proceeding is liable to be quashed according to the law established by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ch. Bhajanlal Vs. State of Hariyana that the malicious prosecution. 16. Finally Mr. Mukherjee argued that the instant proceeding is liable to be quashed according to the law established by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ch. Bhajanlal Vs. State of Hariyana that the malicious prosecution. 16. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the OP No. 2 submits that the investigation of the police was initiated on the basis of a written complaint by the OP No. 2 against the petitioner. After the investigation the police has submitted charge sheet. On the basis of the charge sheet the Learned Magistrate had taken the cognizance of the offence and the case was committed before the Learned Sessions Judge for trial. He further submits that the trial is yet to be commenced due to the instant proceeding. He submits that this Court cannot entertain the merit of this case at the stage. The evidences has collected by the IO during the course of investigation also cannot be evaluated by the High Court in a proceeding u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further submits that if this High Court entertain the merit of the criminal case wherein the charge sheet has been submitted, the mini trial would be conducted. He submits that there are grave allegations against the present petitioner having been committed an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC. 17. Learned Counsel further submits that the allegation in the FIR has been substantiated by submission of charge sheet. The available witnesses has stated the involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged offence. The present petitioners tried to kill the OP No. 2 by pouring ‘phenyl’ in his mouth. Moreover the conduct of the DSP Hospital Authority Durgapur, is questionable. All the materials can only be ascertained and particularly evaluated during the trial. He submits that the instant criminal proceeding cannot be quashed. 18. Learned Advocate for the state handed over the CD and submits that at the stage the instant criminal proceedings cannot be quashed as the charge sheet has been submitted. 19. Heard the Learned Advocate. 20. Perused the FIR; the FIR contain the allegation that present petitioner on 02.09.2012 kept the complainant in a stare case with tightening of hands and legs with ropes thereafter they jointly poured poison in the mouth of the complainant then the complainant became unconscious. Thereafter he brought to DSP Hospital for treatment. Wherever he was released on 04.09.2012. 20. Perused the FIR; the FIR contain the allegation that present petitioner on 02.09.2012 kept the complainant in a stare case with tightening of hands and legs with ropes thereafter they jointly poured poison in the mouth of the complainant then the complainant became unconscious. Thereafter he brought to DSP Hospital for treatment. Wherever he was released on 04.09.2012. It has been further been alleged by the complainant that the petitioner No. 2 in collision with the Hospital Authority as prepared medical paper such as admission register, bed head ticket and discharge certificate etc. It is the positive case of the complainant that he lodged an earlier complaint on the same set of fact before the Commissioner of Police on 11.02.2016. On the basis of such complaint it is the report of the commissioner of Police that the allegation could not be substantiated; against the said action of police one writ petition of was preferred before this High court. One Coordinate Bench of this Court makes it clear that there are unexplained delay in lodging complaint, however the Bench observed, petitioner may work out his remedy in terms of provision u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. In detail reading of the charge-sheet it appears that the IO, who submitted the charge-sheet, is the second investigating officer who during the course of investigation, has recorded the statement of the complainant along with the statement of available witnesses and the Doctor Asish Chatterjee who treated the OP 2 on the relevant point of time. The IO also mentioned in the CS that as per medical report of DSP Hospital and as per the statement of attaining doctor the complainant was conscious, whose statement was not recorded as he did not say anything. 21. Let me consider the entire facts and the scenario of this case. Admittedly the petitioner No. 1 and OP No. 2 had married with each other after got divorced from their earlier marriage. Petitioner No. 1 is a school teacher and OP No. 2 is an Advocate of Durgapur Court. Disputes cropped up between the parties, thus one matrimonial suit was filed on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 in the year 2014. The OP No. 2 filed an application u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act in the said MAT Suit for getting maintenance from his wife on the ground he is a brief-less advocate. Disputes cropped up between the parties, thus one matrimonial suit was filed on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 in the year 2014. The OP No. 2 filed an application u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act in the said MAT Suit for getting maintenance from his wife on the ground he is a brief-less advocate. The said application was registered as MISC Case No. 2 of 2015. In the said MISC Case the OP NO. 2 have also alleged regarding the alleged incident dated 2nd September 2009. Doctor Asish Chatterjee deposed in the said Misc Case as PW 4. During his diposition he submitted the discharge certificate dated 04.09.2012 of DSP Hospital which was exhibited. The said discharge certificate disclosed that it was a case of “self induced Phenyl Poisoning”. The evidence of the doctor was recorded on 21st Day of August 2015. Thereafter the present OP No. 2 had lodged a complaint with the Commissioner of Police on 11.02.2016 against the present petitioners as well as the doctors of the DSP Hospital. The investigation of the commissioner of police regarding the said allegation could not substantiated for which, he preferred a writ application the said writ petition was also turned down and he again filed this FIR regarding the alleged offence happened on 02.09.2012. 22. Let me consider whether the charge sheet submitted by the police substantiated at all the offence as alleged in the FIR. The statement of available witnesses as reflected in the papers does not disclosed any offence committed by the present petitioners punishable u/s 341/342/323/420/506/34 of IPC. The allegation against the present petitioners punishable u/s 307 IPC regarding forceful consuming poison to OP No. 2 is not at all substantiated as the OP No. 2 admittedly stated nothing to the attaining doctors of DSP Hospital regarding forceful consuming of poison by the petitioner. It is quite also astonishing that IO without finding the prima facie materials regarding the alleged offence, has only filed charge sheet on the basis of the statement of the OP No. 2. It is the duty of the IO to investigate a criminal case and to collect the evidences regarding the allegation recorded in the FIR. In this case none of the available witnesses except the complainant himself stated anything about the alleged offence against the present petitioners. It is the duty of the IO to investigate a criminal case and to collect the evidences regarding the allegation recorded in the FIR. In this case none of the available witnesses except the complainant himself stated anything about the alleged offence against the present petitioners. It is more surprising that in the year 2016 the Police Authority has investigated a case and submitted a report that the allegation cannot be substantiated but after long one year the second IO has submitted a charge sheet which does not disclose any prima facie materials of alleged offence against the present petitioners. 23. In assessing the entire facts it appears to me that unlike other cases between the married couples, in this case the husband of a married lady has filed several criminal cases against his wife. The entire dispute started after filing of the matrimonial suit for divorce by the wife (petitioner No. 1). Before the filing of the divorce suit there was an application for mutual divorce between the parties u/s 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, the said petition was not materialised and the parties want to visit Puri. In Puri there are some disputes between the parties. Advocate/husband lodged a complaint case before the Learned SDJM Puri against the present petitioner No. 1 u/s 499/500/34 IPC and also u/s 323/34/342/352/406/506 of IPC. 24. It further appears that the application u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed. The husband also filed application for rejection of bail of the present petitioners before the High Court and he became unsuccessful. It further appears that the OP No. 2/ husband has also placed one duplicate discharge certificate of the said DSP Hospital which is not similar to the discharge summary exhibited before the Court on the earlier occasion. Both the discharge certificate were placed before IO but he is not conducted any investigation regarding the correctness of the discharge certificate. More surprisingly, DSP Hospital Authority was not made accused in this case. 25. The entire facts goes to show that after filing a divorce suit by the wife (petitioner No. 1) the husband OP No. 2 has initiated several criminal cases and proceedings against the present petitioners (wife and father-in-law). It further appears that OP No. 2 (husband) having the knowledge of procedure of law initiated the proceedings against the petitioners only to harass the present petitioners. It further appears that OP No. 2 (husband) having the knowledge of procedure of law initiated the proceedings against the petitioners only to harass the present petitioners. The complaint itself became malicious as the same facts was agitated by the OP 2 time and again in several proceeding after long 04 years of the such alleged offence. It appears to me that the process of law and knowledge of law of an Advocate has been used by the husband (OP 2) only to harass his wife (petitioner No. 1) and her family members. The using of knowledge of law to harass any individual is obviously a “sin” upon the due of process of law. Such Activity is mounting day by day in the society. 26. Considering the entire situation it appears to me that the observation of Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal is very much applicable. In the case of Bhajanlal (supra) the parameter has been laid down by the Apex Court, wherein the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding. There as follows: 37. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, this Court held: 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (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. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is 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. 27. Following the above principles it appears to me that the instant criminal proceeding is manifestly attained with mala fide and instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance with a view to spite the present petitioners to exercise personal grudge. 28. Hence I find materials to entertain the instant criminal revision as there are some good merits. I find justification to pass necessary direction by invoking the inherent power of this court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 28. Hence I find materials to entertain the instant criminal revision as there are some good merits. I find justification to pass necessary direction by invoking the inherent power of this court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the criminal proceeding is allowed to be continued, the same shall tantamount to be an abuse of process of Court. 29. Thus, the CRR 4034 of 2017 is allowed. The Criminal Proceeding being Sessions Case No.-163/2017, arising out of GR NO. 24/2017 arising out of Durgapur PS Case No. 11 of 2017 dated 4th January 2017 u/s 341/323/307/420/506/34 of IPC pending before the Learned Sessions Judge concerned against the present petitioners is hereby quashed. 30. CRR disposed of. Connected CRAN applications if pending are also disposed of. 31. CD be returned.