You can file a SLP in SC or move for discharge in trial court after filing chargesheet 

1) file an application under Section 483 BNSS (corresponding to Section 439(1)(b) CrPC) in the Calcutta High Court to relax the "twice a week" reporting condition.Argue that the reporting is hindering your official duties and that you have consistently cooperated with the investigation.

2)The High Court can still quash an FIR if the allegations are "patently absurd" or "manifestly unjust".

3)You can file a complaint under Section 356 BNS(formerly 499/500 IPC). However, doing this before the FIR is quashed or you are acquitted might be viewed by the court as "retaliatory," as your advocate suggested

4) Since the NHRC has asked for a report, provide them with a detailed timeline of your RTIs and the subsequent "coincidental" police visits/FIR. This strengthens your "police collusion" argument in court.

5) If you already have Anticipatory Bail (AB), there is generally no need to surrender and seek regular bail.

Act as mentioned herein above 

HC cab quash FIRif  allegations are "patently absurd" or "manifestly unjust".If the statement was coerced or the integrity is compromised, you can challenge it in your quashing petition.

Since you have already provided a ₹10,000 bond with two sureties, you have fulfilled the court's requirement for financial security. A cash bond is typically an alternative to a surety bond, not an additional payment.

You don’t need to surrender and get regular bail 

AB continues till trial is over 

seek phone consultation woth any lawyer on this website 

File an application before the jurisdictional Magistrate alerting them that the IO is refusing to accept your defense evidence (CCTV, RTI replies) despite the mandate for a fair investigation.

Do not file application to convert to regular bail unless AB is cancelled and don't surrender now.

File application for modification/relaxation of AB conditions before the same High Court.

Do not file petition under 175(3) or 223 BNSS now because it would be considered as retaliation especially while the quash petition is pending before high court as well as a complaint with NHRC is also pending Multiplicity may dilute your main argument: “malicious prosecution.”

Do not file criminal defamation case now because it would be seen as counter blast, it may distract high court proceedings.

You may file a defamation case after the case is quashed or discharge.

if complainant publicly circulated allegations, you can file a defamation case against him.

Filing civil suit now is not advisable immediately.

Civil damages for malicious prosecution lie after termination of criminal proceedings in your favour.

Since NHRC has called for report:

File a detailed rejoinder after police report comes.

NHRC findings can strengthen quashing, establish bias, may help future malicious prosecution claim.

Do not antagonize police while NHRC process ongoing.

If charge sheet is filed in the new BNS case you may file a separate quashing case.

The suggested chronological plan is:

Continue complying with AB.

Send defence documents via registered post.

File AB modification petition.

Await police report to NHRC.

Strengthen quashing with suppression + timeline.

If a charge sheet is filed, file second quashing.

After acquittal/quashing file malicious prosecution with defamation case.

In NHRC the police usually don't admit the allegations.

But remember that the NHRC reports are not recommendatory type and it may recommend to quash the FIR however if NHRC observes Bias or suppression of earlier complaint or failure to register counter FIR pattern after RTIs, then it becomes persuasive material before the High Court. So NHRC is supportive and not decisive.

You already have:

Two quashing petitions (or one pending)

Anticipatory bail

NHRC proceedings

RTI documentation

If you now file:

175(3) BNSS (magistrate direction to register FIR) or 223 BNSS complaint case, the State will argue before the High Court that the petitioner is misusing process by filing serial litigations to pressurize complainants, that can hurt your quashing credibility.

Courts may treat this as parallel criminal warfare, hence it may affect your pending quash case.

If complainant earlier pleaded guilty in NCR under 323/506 IPC, and that was not disclosed in SC/ST case then that strengthens abuse of process argument.

Since you complied with 41A notice and AB conditions you may file modification petition before the same High Court to relax the bail conditions.

Right now your biggest risk is not police.

Your biggest risk is procedural overreaction.

You are already in High Court. That is your strongest protection. Hence don't file 223 BNSS now.

If the Calcutta High Court refuses quashing then you may have to look for remedy in the trial court by filing discharge petition or challenge the case on merits in the trial proceedings.

If discharge petition is also dismissed then you can challenge the case in trial proceedings.

You cross-examine complainant.

You expose RTI retaliation pattern.

Remember that the false cases collapse during cross-examination.

You do not have to pay ₹20,000 in cash to the Trial Court or to the IO unless the bail order specifically says “cash bond.”If your anticipatory bail order says:

“Petitioner shall execute a bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties of like amount.”

It means:

You sign a personal bond of ₹10,000.

Two sureties each give surety for ₹10,000.

No cash is deposited.

No payment to IO.

Assume the Calcutta High Court dismisses your 482/Quashing petition.

That is not the end. It only means the trial court will examine evidence.

Your anticipatory bail continues.

If charge sheet filed, the 

AB usually converts into regular bail on appearance.

You may have to execute fresh bonds before trial court. You will not be taken into custody if you comply.

Before trial begins, file discharge under BNSS (equivalent to old 239/227 CrPC depending on court).

If discharge petition is dismissed then you can file a revision petition before sessions court or High court depending on the situation.

If the revision petition is also dismissed then you better challenge the false cases in the trial proceedings and get acquitted on merits and documents supporting your pleadings.

You feel that the “Entire district against me.”

But legally:

You are already under High Court protection. Police cannot arrest casually. NHRC monitoring exists.

The system looks hostile emotionally, but legally you are protected.

Your situation indicates multiple criminal proceedings arising after earlier disputes and RTI applications, and therefore what is required at this stage is not aggressive parallel litigation but a carefully sequenced legal strategy. In matters involving alleged police bias, success depends less on the number of cases filed and more on maintaining judicial credibility before the High Court.

I will explain the correct legal course step-by-step in chronological order considering your present position.

1. Your Present Legal Position

At present:

• You have already obtained anticipatory bail from the High Court
• Notice has been issued in your quashing petition
• Investigation is continuing
• NHRC has sought a report from the police

Legally speaking, you are protected at this stage. Your immediate objective should be preservation of credibility before the High Court rather than escalation of proceedings.

Courts carefully observe the conduct of an accused after grant of anticipatory bail.

2. Whether Section 175(3) BNSS or Section 223 BNSS Should Be Filed Now

Your advocate’s advice appears legally sound.

Filing proceedings against police officials immediately after registration of FIR often creates an impression of:

• counter-blast litigation
• attempt to pressurise investigation
• retaliation against police action

Since your quashing petition is already pending before the High Court, initiating fresh criminal proceedings at this stage may weaken your overall case presentation.

Therefore, at present, it is advisable not to file applications under Section 175(3) BNSS or Section 223 BNSS immediately.

The stronger approach is:

• allow investigation to proceed, and
• highlight investigative bias and suppression of material within the quashing proceedings themselves.

Premature action against investigating authorities sometimes harms the optics of the case.

3. Most Important Step Now – Create Record of Cooperation

Because your anticipatory bail requires appearance before the IO:

• Attend strictly as directed
• Submit all defence documents in writing
• Obtain acknowledgment wherever possible

If the IO refuses to receive documents:

• send them by Speed Post or official email to the IO and Superintendent of Police
• retain postal proof and copies

This creates an official record showing that you repeatedly cooperated but your evidence was ignored. Such documentation becomes extremely valuable before the High Court.

Always communicate in writing rather than oral confrontation.

4. Relaxation of Anticipatory Bail Conditions

Yes, bail conditions can be relaxed.

After demonstrating reasonable compliance for some time, you may move the High Court seeking modification of conditions on grounds that:

• investigation cooperation has been completed
• repeated attendance affects professional duties
• liberty has not been misused

High Courts frequently relax appearance conditions once cooperation is established.

You should not surrender merely to obtain regular bail. Surrender may unnecessarily weaken your defensive position when High Court protection already exists.

5. Bond Amount Clarification

Execution of a bond does not mean payment of cash to police.

A bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties means:

• personal bond executed before court
• sureties undertake liability in case of violation

No cash payment is required unless the court specifically orders cash security. Payment is never made to the Investigating Officer.

6. Effect of NHRC Proceedings

NHRC calling for a police report is procedurally favourable, but its scope must be understood correctly.

Police generally submit a report stating:

• FIR was registered lawfully
• investigation is fair
• allegations of harassment are denied

NHRC does not decide criminal guilt or quash FIRs. However, NHRC proceedings create an independent institutional record which may later support your contention of harassment or retaliatory action.

Thus, continue pursuing NHRC proceedings calmly. They strengthen background credibility but do not directly determine the criminal case.

7. Whether Criminal Defamation or Civil Suit Should Be Filed Now

At this stage, filing criminal defamation or civil damages proceedings is not advisable.

Such action during pendency of investigation may appear retaliatory.

The legally stronger stage for these remedies arises:

• after quashing, discharge, or acquittal, or
• when malicious prosecution becomes demonstrable.

Premature litigation often weakens strategic positioning.

8. Filing of Writ Petition at Present Stage

Multiple simultaneous proceedings arising from the same dispute may create an impression of excessive litigation.

Unless there is an immediate threat to liberty or clear violation of fundamental rights, filing additional writ petitions now may not be strategically beneficial.

Courts generally prefer consolidated litigation rather than fragmented challenges.

9. If Quashing Petition Is Refused

Refusal of quashing does not amount to proof of guilt.

If quashing fails, the normal legal course is:

• Continue protection under bail
• After filing of charge-sheet, move Discharge Application before Trial Court
• Challenge rejection of discharge, if required
• Contest trial by demonstrating contradictions, prior NCR proceedings, CCTV evidence, and documentary record
• After acquittal, initiate proceedings for malicious prosecution and damages

Many false prosecutions fail at discharge or trial stage even when quashing is declined.

10. Long-Term Legal Strategy

Your defence appears to rest upon:

• prior complaint made by you
• subsequent FIRs after RTI activity
• alleged retaliatory conduct
• refusal of police to consider defence material

These aspects should emerge through judicial record progressively rather than through aggressive parallel complaints.

Courts attach greater value to documented restraint and cooperation.

11. Immediate Chronological Action Plan

1. Continue strict compliance with anticipatory bail conditions

2. Submit defence materials in writing with proof of delivery

3. Avoid initiating fresh criminal proceedings at present

4. Pursue quashing proceedings patiently

5. After reasonable compliance, seek relaxation of bail conditions

6. Continue NHRC proceedings

7. Preserve CCTV footage, witnesses and documentary proof

8. Await investigation outcome before initiating counter-litigation

Final Advice

At this stage, your case is procedurally sensitive but not legally weak. The principal risk lies in appearing confrontational while seeking discretionary relief from the High Court.

Maintaining cooperation, documentation and procedural discipline will significantly strengthen your position for quashing, discharge or eventual acquittal.

Based on the facts you have described, you are already pursuing the correct primary remedies. In situations involving alleged false FIRs, police hostility, and parallel proceedings, the strategy should remain structured and sequential, rather than filing multiple aggressive actions simultaneously which may appear retaliatory before the court.

First, regarding your anticipatory bail: since the High Court has already granted anticipatory bail with conditions, you must continue complying with those conditions strictly. The bond amount mentioned in the anticipatory bail order is usually executed before the jurisdictional trial court or the investigating officer as directed in the order, along with sureties. It is generally not a cash deposit unless the order specifically directs a cash bond. Two sureties will normally execute bonds of the specified amount before the court.

If the condition of appearing before the IO twice a week is too burdensome, you may file an application before the same High Court seeking modification or relaxation of bail conditions after showing consistent compliance. Courts often relax conditions once cooperation is demonstrated.

Second, regarding the quashing petitions: you should allow the existing quashing proceedings in the High Court to proceed. Since notice has already been issued to the State and the complainant, the court will examine the FIR, the case diary, and surrounding circumstances. Filing additional criminal complaints at this stage may sometimes strengthen the State’s argument that the dispute is retaliatory. This is likely why your advocate is advising caution.

Third, concerning Sections 175(3) or 223 BNSS (complaint before Magistrate): filing such proceedings immediately while the FIR and quashing petitions are pending can sometimes complicate the litigation. Courts usually prefer that the accused first pursue remedies within the pending proceedings. Your advocate’s suggestion to wait is therefore strategically reasonable.

Fourth, regarding NHRC proceedings: when NHRC seeks a report, the police generally submit a factual report explaining their actions. NHRC proceedings are primarily human rights oversight mechanisms, not criminal adjudication. Their report will not directly decide the criminal case, but if NHRC records adverse observations against the police, it may strengthen your position in later proceedings.

Fifth, if the quashing petition is ultimately dismissed, the normal course is:

1. Continue protection under bail (anticipatory bail usually converts into regular bail once you appear before the trial court).
2. Participate in trial proceedings.
3. Challenge improper investigation during trial through cross-examination and documentary evidence.
4. If the case is demonstrably false, seek discharge at the appropriate stage before framing of charges.
5. If charges are framed, defend the case through trial while preserving grounds for appeal or revision.

Sixth, regarding criminal defamation or civil damages: these remedies are generally pursued after the criminal proceedings conclude and the allegations are proven false. Filing them prematurely can sometimes be viewed as pressure tactics.

Seventh, on the issue of counter-complaints against police: if there is clear evidence of malicious prosecution or misconduct, remedies may include departmental complaints, judicial complaints before a Magistrate, or writ jurisdiction. However, these should usually be pursued carefully and not simultaneously with multiple criminal proceedings unless strongly advised by counsel.

In summary, the most stable approach at this stage is to:

• Continue complying with anticipatory bail conditions.

• Allow the pending quashing proceedings to be heard.

• Avoid filing retaliatory criminal complaints immediately unless strategically necessary.

• Seek modification of bail conditions if required.

• Preserve all evidence for use during discharge or trial if quashing is not granted.

Dear client,

You're facing two separate issues as a result of the aforementioned case: (1) You are implicated with alleged criminal conduct under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; and (2) You will follow procedural requirements under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Once you have obtained anticipatory bail from the Kolkata High Court, your immediate task is to comply with the terms of your bail conditions, including cooperation with the police investigator assigned to your case in all respects, unless the conditions of your bail become unduly burdensome. If you believe that any of the bail conditions are too demanding on your time, you may file for a modification or suspension of the conditions of your bail in the Kolkata High Court.

Second, if you believe that the FIR against you was false or malicious, pursue your quashing petition under the principles laid out in Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), also known as the absolute right to file a quashing of an FIR pursuant to the procedure outlined in the BNSS; that is, if you can show that the FIR was an abuse of process, you will prevail upon a quashing of the FIR, as held by the Supreme Court of India in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, on 10 March 1992.

Third, with respect to Section 175(3) or Section 223 of the BNSS, it is generally advisable for you to wait for the conclusion of the investigation or the filing of the charge sheet before you file your complaint against the accused, as a filing made prior to the conclusion of the investigation or the commencement of the trial may be deemed to be retaliatory in nature.

Should you fail to quash the FIR against you, apply for regular bail from the trial court, fight the charges against you at your trial, and present your supporting documentary and RTI evidence.

Your civil remedies, such as defamation, can be pursued after the outcome of your criminal proceeding.

If you have any query please feel free to contact us