JUDGMENT :

AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the impugned proceeding, namely Suri police station case no. 299 of 2021 dated 07.08.2021, corresponding to G.R. case No. 946 of 2021, presently pending before learned CJM, Suri, Birbhum, petitioners/accused persons have preferred the present application with a prayer for quashing the said proceeding.

2. It has been contended by Mr. Ahmed on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 lodged a complaint against the defacto complainant of the present proceeding alleging that on 17.05.2021 at around 10 a.m. while petitioner no. 1 was cleaning her father’s room, her brother in law and sister started cursing her with fowl languages and when she raised protest, her brother in law assaulted her and outraged her modesty and for which she filed a complaint before the Suri police station being case no. 187/21 dated 17.05.2021. Petitioners further contention is, as a counter blast of the said complaint, petitioner no. 1’s sister namely Shahin Afrin filed present written complaint after about three months of alleged date of occurrence, against the present petitioner on 07.08.2021, with the allegation that on the same date i.e. on 17.05.2021 at around 10-11 a.m. on the pretext of cleaning the floor of the house, petitioners herein started abusing the complainant with filthy languages and when her children started crying the accused persons chased the complainant and her babies, taking bricks in their hand, in order to kill them and the accused persons/petitioners herein also tried to strangulate the de facto complainant by putting a pillow in the mouth of the complainant and when her babies started shouting, the witnesses reached the spot and finding the witnesses presence, the petitioners/accused persons fled away from the spot. Thereafter the defacto complainant had gone to police station but police did not take their complaint and thereafter under the courts order investigation started.

3. Mr. Ahmed on behalf of the petitioners further submits that the allegations made by the opposite party/de facto complainant is totally baseless and the innocent petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present proceeding. The fact is that the de facto complainant does not want that the petitioners should stay in her parent’s house and wanted to grasp the entire property of her parents. The investigating agency did not appreciate that the impugned proceeding has originated from personal animosity and counter blast and as such falls within the periphery of those circumstances, where the investigating authority before proceeding for investigation should have more cautious and circumspective but the investigating authority without considering the basic principle, that materials should disclose commission of a cognizable offence, had submitted a perfunctory charge sheet under sections 341/323/506/34 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) against the petitioner. In fact the investigating authority have miserably failed to show that there are ingredients under section 341/323/506/34 of IPC. The allegations levelled against the petitioners that they had attempted to asphyxiate the de facto complainant with the help of a pillow is a cock and bull story and has not been substantiated by any cogent evidence except the seizure of one pillow, which by itself is neither proof nor indicative of anything. The daughters of petitioner No.1 was not even present at the time of alleged occurrence as falsely alleged.

4. Mr. Ahmed further submits that it is unfortunate that learned Magistrate also did not make any endeavour at the time of taking cognizance, ignoring settled principle of law that while taking cognizance of an offence, the learned magistrate ought to have been more careful and cautious. He further submits that considering the materials available so far, one must not have any doubt in his mind that the acquisition against the petitioners cannot stand and as such it will be a travesty of justice,