The Petitioner No.2 made correspondence with the Chief Personnel Officer of the Eastern Railway to ascertain whether the husband of the Opposite Party No.2 had drawn the house rent allowance as an employee of the railways during the period for which the Opposite Party No.2 claimed house rent allowance as Assistant Teacher of the school.CRR No. 2486 of 2011 With CRAN No. 1152 of 2013 Ruma Raha Dutta & Ors.The State of West Bengal & Anr.This criminal revision is preferred by the petitioners for quashing the proceeding being G. R. Case No.807 of 2007 arising out of Dankuni Police Station Case No.151 of 2007 dated 30.09.2007 under Sections 341/323/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(x) and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 pending before the Court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Serampore, Hooghly.The Opposite Party No.2 is the Assistant Teacher of Raghunathpur Balika Vidyalaya and her husband Shri Gora Chand Das is a Senior Labour Welfare Inspector of the Eastern Railway.The Petitioner No.1 is the Headmistress of Raghunathpur Balika Vidyalaya.The Petitioner No.2 is the Secretary, the Petitioner No.3 is the President and the Petitioner No.4 is the member of the Managing Committee of the said Raghunathpur Balika Vidyalaya.The allegations made by the Opposite Party No.2 being the defacto complainant in the written complaint treated as F.I.R. are as follows:"On 29.09.2007 at 11.20 a.m. within the school premises Smt. Ruma Raha (Dutta), Shri Kamal Krishna Ghosh, Bhola Hazra, Johar Jyoti etc., the managing committee members of the school have assaulted mentally with uses filthy languages with loudly voice and tortured in a scientific manner.A no. of filthy languages with loudly voice was used to force me to leave the job and life threatening me being continued.Under the circumstances would request your attention to take necessary action in accordance with Article 359 of the constitution of Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 against them."It is relevant to point out that the persons whose names are disclosed by the Opposite Party No.2 in the F.I.R. are the petitioners of the instant criminal revision.The police took up the investigation of the above criminal case.The petitioners have prayed for quashing the said criminal proceeding.However, on appeal the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court reversed the judgement of the Learned Single Judge and thereafter the order of the Division Bench was upheld by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court approved the acquisition proceedings.Therefore, the writ petition, out of which the appeal arose before the Supreme Court, purports to be an attempt to litigate once again, inter alia, on the ground that the aforesaid blocks of land were outside the purview of the framework of the agreement and notification issued under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act. In this reported case, the original writ petition before the Single Bench, the appeal before the Division Bench and the appeal before the Supreme Court were decided on merit and as such the subsequent writ petition and appeal were held to be barred by the principles of res judicata and abuse of the process of the court.Mr. Sekhar Basu, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has pointed out the order of dismissal of criminal revision being CRR No.4308 of 2007 in order to urge before this court that the previous criminal revision was not dismissed on merit.On perusal of the order dated 22.06.2011 passed in CRR No.4308 of 2007 it is clear that none appeared on behalf of the petitioners and Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submitted that the investigation was done and charge sheet was submitted before the Trial Court.In view of the fact that charge sheet was submitted the criminal revision was dismissed without hearing Learned Counsel representing the petitioners.Since the criminal revision being CRR No.4308 of 2007 was not dismissed on merit, the ratio of the decision of "M. Nagabhushana V. State of Karnataka" reported in (2011) 3 SCC 408 cannot be applicable in the facts of the present case.Now, it is relevant to point out from the materials on record the long standing animosity between the Opposite Party No.2 and the petitioners before the incident dated 29.09.2007, which gave rise to the present criminal proceeding.In the middle of the year 2003, the Petitioner No.1 being the Headmistress of the school and the members of the managing committee of the said school requested all the teachers to donate Rs.50,000/- each towards development fund of the school.The Opposite Party No.2 refused to make donation and thereby strained relationship cropped up between the Opposite Party No.2 and the petitioners.It appears from the materials on record that the Petitioner No.1 stopped giving house rent allowance to the Opposite Party No.2 with effect from 01.04.2005 on the ground that she did not submit the document in support of her declaration that her husband being a government employee is not drawing house rent allowance.However, ultimately the Opposite Party No.2 moved the High Court by filing W.P. No.4391 (W) of 2007 and on 25.06.2007 the High Court passed the order that the Opposite Party No.2 will get the house rent allowance along with arrears within the time frame given by the High Court.The above admitted facts go to establish that there was long standing animosity between the Opposite Party No.2 and the petitioners for two reasons: first, the demand of donation of Rs.50,000/- by the petitioners towards the development fund of the school and secondly, the stoppage of disbursement of house rent allowance of the Opposite Party No.2 by the Petitioner No.1 for failure of the Opposite Party No.2 to submit document in support of the declaration that her husband is not drawing house rent allowance.With the above background of facts, the Opposite Party No.2 was absent from the school for more than three months on medical ground immediately before the incident.The incident took place when the Opposite Party No.2 entered into the office room of the Petitioner No.1 for submitting her application for leave on medical ground.

Cited provisions: Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code