JUDGEMENT : 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC for short) with prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 22.05.2022, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, (CJM for short), Kokrajhar in CR case No. 36/2022. The petitioner in this case is Ganga Phukan who is accused in connection with CR case No. 36/2023 under Sections 320/324 of the IPC. 2. The genesis of the case is that an FIR was lodged against the petitioner by Pranjit Kumar Wary who is the father of Antar Jyoti Wary, alleging that the petitioner tortured Antar Jyoti Wary and his friend on 15.10.2021. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner is the S.I. of Police posted at Kokrajhar Police Station. Initially, Antar Jyoti Wary was arrayed as an accused in connection with Kokrajhar P.S. case No. 729/2021 under Sections 143/147/341/353/294/427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short), read with Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, wherein it has been alleged that, on 14.10.2021, at about 8:30 p.m., the petitioner who was posted at Kokrajhar Police Station was in a patrolling duty with the O.C., when they noticed two groups of youths, armed with lathi involved in a heated and aggressive confrontation. The petitioner tried to prevent the fight and one group immediately escaped whereas, Antar Jyoti Wary and Dipunjoy Brahma, instead of complying with the direction and instruction of the police team, became more aggressive and pulled out the star plates from the petitioner's uniform, tearing his uniform in the process. Both the miscreants uttered obscene words and hurled abuses at the patrolling team. Both the miscreants including Antar Jyoti were brought to the Police Station. Investigation commenced and charge-sheet was submitted against the miscreants under Sections 341/353/294/427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) read with Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, (due to the Pandemic prevalent at that time). This case then culminated into GR case No. 1226/2021 and PRC No. 03/2022, and cognizance was taken against Antar Jyoti and his co-accused. 3. This case then culminated into GR case No. 1226/2021 and PRC No. 03/2022, and cognizance was taken against Antar Jyoti and his co-accused. 3. As a counterblast, Antar Jyoti’s father, Shri Pranjit Kumar Wary (hereinafter respondent No. 2), lodged an FIR as an afterthought on 18.10.2021, which was registered as Kokrajhar P.S. Case No. 751/2021 under Sections 323/324 of the IPC, GD entry No. 629 dated 18.10.2021, and this case was registered as GR No. 1264/2021, and an S.I., Ananda Rabha of Kokrajhar P.S., was entrusted with the investigation. The FIR was registered after the enquiry report dated 22.10.2021. The allegation against the petitioner in the instant case is that on 14.19.2021, at about 8:30 p.m., the respondent No. 2's son, Antar Jyoti and his friend Dipunjay with three others went to observe Durga Puja at Kokrajhar town, Ward No. 1. At that time, a police team led by S.I. Ganga Phukan were dispersing the crowd and Antar Jyoti along with his friends were complying with the instruction of the police. At the time of crossing the road, Antar Jyoti politely addressing S.I. Ganga Phukan as Sir, and asked about the duration of the curfew and reason for dispersing the crowd. At this, the police team became aggressive and tortured Antar Jyoti and his friend Dipunjay on the road in presence of the general public. Later on, both of them were forcibly picked up in the police vehicle and were tortured inside the van as well as in the Kokrajhar Police Station. As a result, Antar Jyoti and his friend sustained several injuries which also included cut injuries. Consequentially, they had to be provided medical treatment. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the FIR of the instant case was registered after an enquiry report dated 22.10.2021. Impartial, fair and proper investigation was conducted and the medico-legal report reveals that the respondent No. 2's son- Antar Jyoti did not sustain any injury and thus, final report being FR No. 406/2021 dated 30.11.2021, was submitted i.e., (Annexure-11). 5. Against this Final report, the informant/respondent No. 2 filed a Narazi petition which was registered as CR case No. 36/2022, and vide impugned order dated 23.03.2022, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, summons’s were issued against the petitioner directing him to appear before the leaned CJM, Kokrajhar on 13.07.2022. 5. Against this Final report, the informant/respondent No. 2 filed a Narazi petition which was registered as CR case No. 36/2022, and vide impugned order dated 23.03.2022, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, summons’s were issued against the petitioner directing him to appear before the leaned CJM, Kokrajhar on 13.07.2022. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 10.05.2022, passed by the learned CJM, Kokrajhar in CR case No. 36/2022, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. It is contended that the learned CJM has failed to appreciate the vital facts that the FIR in question being Kokrajhar P.S. case No. 753/2021, has been lodged by the informant/respondent No. 2, as a counterblast to the FIR registered as Kokrajhar P.S. case No. 729/2021 against the respondent No. 2's son, Antar Jyoti Wary and his friend Dipunjay with allegations of assaulting the police personnel and obstructing the police from discharging their duty and violating Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act during curfew. The learned CJM has failed to appreciate that on the basis of injuries reflected in the medico-legal report, final report was submitted in favour of the petitioner and thus there is no cause of action for entertainment of the Narazi petition and for taking cognizance of offences under Section 323/324 of the IPC against the petitioner. 6. It is submitted that this is a fit case to be set aside and quashed as further proceeding will be an abuse of the process of the Court and possibility of conviction appears to be remote and bleak. There is no hurdle in invoking the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC with respect to this case. It cannot be ignored that no injuries were detected on examination of the so called victims by the Medical Officer. 7. The respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition inter alia denying the averments in the petition. The respondent No. 2 has vigorously denied that a false case has been lodged as a counterblast to the Kokrajhar P.S. case No. 729/2021. 7. The respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition inter alia denying the averments in the petition. The respondent No. 2 has vigorously denied that a false case has been lodged as a counterblast to the Kokrajhar P.S. case No. 729/2021. On the contrary, it is alleged that on 14.10.2021, at about 8:30 p.m., respondent No.2’s son Antar Jyoti, who was a college student at that time went to celebrate Durga puja along with his friends Dipunjay and three others, and while they were celebrating puja peacefully, a police van arrived and suddenly stopped in front of them and directed the people observing Durga puja to disperse due to Covid related issues. The respondent No. 2's son- Antar Jyoti asked the police about the duration of the curfew and whether there would be any relaxation to celebrate Durga puja. At this, the police took offence and started assaulting the boys at the spot and thereafter picked up the boys and forcibly took the boys to the police station in their van while continuing to assault them. Later, the respondent No. 2's son and his other friends were released at night. On the following day, when the Student body of Kokrajhar College learnt about the police atrocities, they staged a protest against the police for same incident. On the advice of the Student body, the respondent No. 2's son- Antar Jyoti filed a complaint before the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC for short) on 15.10.2021. Sensing trouble, S.I. Ganga Phukan lodged an FIR dated 15.10.2021, against Antar Jyoti and his friend Dipunjay, which was registered as Kokrajhar P.S. case No. 729/2021, and after investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the respondent No. 2's son- Antar Jyoti and his co-accused. It is further submitted that the victims were college going students with good academic record and they had no criminal antecedents. They were shocked by aggressive conduct of the police personnel and they were impelled to lodge this instant case. 8. It is further alleged that the Investigating Officer did not properly investigate the case and without recording the statements of the eye witnesses, in a biased and an arbitrary manner, filed a final report under Section 173 of the Cr.PC. They were shocked by aggressive conduct of the police personnel and they were impelled to lodge this instant case. 8. It is further alleged that the Investigating Officer did not properly investigate the case and without recording the statements of the eye witnesses, in a biased and an arbitrary manner, filed a final report under Section 173 of the Cr.PC. This impelled the respondent No. 2 to file a Narazi petition which was later registered as CR case No. 36/2022, and the learned CJM, correctly took cognizance after perusal of the statements of the complainant and his witnesses. The averment of the petitioner has been refuted by the respondent No. 2 stating that at the time of taking cognizance, the accused is not entitled for hearing and thus, no notice was issued to the petitioner. 9. The respondent No. 2 has vehemently denied any group clash as propounded by the petitioner, S.I. Ganga Phukan. As such, the bodily injuries sustained by the victims are the result of 3rd degree torture inflicted by S.I. Ganga Phukan. 10. It is further contended that the petitioner's submission that no injuries were sustained by the victims is a misleading statement and is thus unacceptable. The victims Antar Jyoti and his co-accused were taken to R.N.B. Civil Hospital, and the doctor examined them and issued prescription/advise slip dated 15.10.2021, vide O.P.D. Reg. No. ML-1045, Sl. No. 8093 for the injuries and advised them to attend O.P.D. surgery for better treatment. The photographs of the injuries sustained by the victims have been annexed as Annexure-3 of the petition. It is further submitted that with these facts and circumstances of this case, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Nonetheless, Section 482 of the Cr.PC should be exercised sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases. In the instant case, there is every likelihood that the petitioner will be convicted. The N.H.R.C, New Delhi has already taken cognizance into the matter. There appears to be no hint of abuse of the process of the Court or any likelihood of miscarriage of justice if the petitioner is proceeded upon. At this juncture, it cannot be conclusively decided without even a hint of evidence that the proceeding will result in abuse of the process of the Court as possibility of conviction appears to be remote and bleak. 11. Heard learned counsel Mr. At this juncture, it cannot be conclusively decided without even a hint of evidence that the proceeding will result in abuse of the process of the Court as possibility of conviction appears to be remote and bleak. 11. Heard learned counsel Mr. I. H. Saikia, for the petitioner Ganga Phukan. Heard learned counsel Mr. A. Islam for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent State. 12. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection and I have also scrutinized the scanned copies of the Case Diary as well as the scanned copies of the Trial Court Records of CR No. 36/2022. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Impugned order dated 10.05.2022, in connection with CR No. 36/2022. Vide order dated 10.05.2022, the learned CJM, Kokrajhar, has observed that the statements of the complainant and the witnesses reveals that the petitioner did not act in discharge of his duty as there were no allegations against the victim of any offence. 13. After considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the learned CJM issued summons against the petitioner. According to the learned CJM, the police personnel acted outside the bounds of his duty. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the medical report marked as Annexure-10 and 11 of the petition which clearly reveals that Antar Jyoti Wary and his co-accused did not sustain any injuries when they were examined by the Medical officer on 14.10.2021, and thus final report (Annexure-11) was laid in favor of the petitioner. On the contrary, the scanned copies of the Trial Court Records reveals some photographs which clearly reveals injuries sustained by the respondent No. 2's son. The date and time has not been mentioned in the pictures depicting the injuries sustained by Antar Jyoti Wary, but at the same time, these pictures cannot be ignored without due consideration. It appears that the evidence has to be taken into consideration. It is at the very initial stage, the petitioner has preferred this petition i.e., at the stage of cognizance being taken by the learned CJM in connection with CR No. 36/2022. As soon as final report was submitted, summons’s were issued to the complainant who in turn filed a Narazi petition and this complaint case was registered on the basis of the Narazi petition. As soon as final report was submitted, summons’s were issued to the complainant who in turn filed a Narazi petition and this complaint case was registered on the basis of the Narazi petition. Annexure-12 is the Narazi petition and Annexure-14 is the impugned order, which was passed after scrutinizing the pictures reflecting the injuries sustained by the victim Antar Jyoti. It appears that at this juncture, the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.PC may not be invoked. 15. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramveer Upadhyay & Anr Vs The State of U.P. & Anr reported in 2022 0 AIR (SC) 2044 , wherein it has been held and observed that: “39. In our considered opinion criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only because the complaint has been lodged by a political rival. It is possible that a false complaint may have been lodged at the behest of a political opponent However, such possibility would not justify interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings. As observed above, the possibility of retaliation on the part of the petitioners by the acts alleged, after closure of the earlier criminal case cannot be ruled out. The allegations in the complaint constitute offence under the Atrocities Act. Whether the allegations are true or untrue would have to be decided in the trial. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare case where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence The Complaint Case No. 19/2018 is not such a case which should be quashed at the inception itself without further Trial. The High Court rightly dismissed the application under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.” 16. In the instant case, I have also scrutinized the scanned copies of the Trial Court Records as well as the scanned copies of the Case Diary. I would also like to reiterate that the learned CJM has spelt out sound reasonings while issuing notice to the petitioner. It is apparent that the case No. 36/2022 is at its initial stage. In the instant case, I have also scrutinized the scanned copies of the Trial Court Records as well as the scanned copies of the Case Diary. I would also like to reiterate that the learned CJM has spelt out sound reasonings while issuing notice to the petitioner. It is apparent that the case No. 36/2022 is at its initial stage. There is ample of scope available to the petitioner to dispute the order of cognizance even at the stage of framing of charges. At this juncture, it cannot be conclusively decided that possibility of conviction appears to be remote and bleak or further proceedings will be an abuse of the process of the Court, more so when it appears that the petitioner may be prejudiced if the proceeding is quashed at its nascent stage. 17. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zunaid & Anr Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr 2023 0 Supreme (SC)811, wherein it has been observed that: “10. In Rakesh & Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another. (2014) 13 SCC 133 it is observed as under:- 6. If we are to go back to trace the genesis of the views expressed by this Court in Gopal Vijay Verma v. Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha (1982) 3 SCC 510 , notice must be had of the decision of this Court in HS Bains v State (UT of Chandigarh) (1980) 4 SCC 611 wherein it was held that after receipt of the police report under Section 173, the Magistrate has three options (H.S. Bains case (supra) 6. …(1) he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action; (2) he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) on the basis of the police report and issue process, this he may do without being bound in any manner by the conclusion arrived at by the police in their report, (3) he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200. If he adopts the third alternative, he may hold or direct an inquiry under Section 202 if he thinks fit. If he adopts the third alternative, he may hold or direct an inquiry under Section 202 if he thinks fit. Thereafter he may dismiss the complaint or issue process, as the case may be.” The second and third options available to the Magistrate as laid down in H.S. Bains (supra) has been referred to and relied upon in subsequent decisions of this Court to approve the action of the Magistrate in accepting the final report and at the same time in proceeding to treat either the police report of the initial complaint as the basis for further action enquiry in the matter of the allegations levelled therein, Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of this Court in Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v State of Maharashtra (2004)7 SCC 768 The following view may be specifically noted 9. …. The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer and independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation and take cognizance of the case, if he thinks fit, exercise his powers under Section 190(1)(b) and direct the issue of process to the accused The Magistrate is not bound in such a situation to follow the procedure laid down in Sections 200 and 202 of the Code for taking cognizance of a case under Section 190 though it is open to him to act under Section 200 or Section 202 also. [See India Carat (P) Ltd State of Karnataka, (1989) 2 SCC 132 )" (SCCP. 140, Para 16)" 11. In view of the above, there remains no shadow of doubt that on the receipt of the police report, under Section 173 Cr.P.C, the Magistrate can exercise three options. Firstly, he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action. Secondly, he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) on the basis of the police report and issue process, and thirdly be may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200. Secondly, he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) on the basis of the police report and issue process, and thirdly be may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200. It may be noted that even in a case where the final report of the police under Section 173 is accepted and the accused persons are discharged, the Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of the offence on a complaints or a Protest Petition on the same or similar allegations even after the acceptance of the final report As held by this Court in Gopal Vijay Verma Vs. Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha and Others, (1982) 3 SCC 510 as followed in B. Chandrika Vs. Santhosh and Another, (2014) 13 SCC 699 . A Magistrate is not debarred from taking cognizance of a complaint merely on the ground that earlier he had declined to take cognizance of the police report. No doubt a Magistrate while exercising his judicial discretion has to apply his mind to the contents of the Protest Petition or the complaint as the case may be.” 18. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramveer Upadhay (Supra) and in the case of Zunaid (Supra), this petition stands dismissed. 19. It is apt to reiterate that the petition which is marked as Annexure-12 of the petition, elaborately reflects the grievance of the respondent No. 2. The scanned copies of the Trial Court Records also reveals the pictures of the injuries sustained by the respondent No. 2's son. 20. Sufficient reasons for taking cognizance against the petitioner has been reflected by the Magistrate in the impugned order dated 10.05.2022, in CR No. 36/2022. 21. At this juncture, the Court is hesitant to quash the proceedings. In the wake of the foregoing discussions, petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.