Since you have Anticipatory Bail (AB) with a condition to meet the IO twice a week, compliance is your strongest shield.

Every time you visit the police station, take a photo in front of the station or use Google Maps Timeline to prove your presence. During your visits, try to hand over your evidence (CCTV footage, cash memos for the money you were carrying) via a formal letter. If the IO refuses, send it via Registered Post AD the same day. This creates a paper trail that the IO is "refusing to receive proofs," which is vital for your quashing petition.

The statements alone do not bar quashing if the FIR is demonstrably "maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive" . Do not delay the interim stay application. Highlight the proximity of dates: the incident on 24th Nov followed immediately after your RTI on 19th Nov. This "proximate link" is the strongest evidence of a retaliatory FIR.

File an interlocutory application in the High Court to bring the NHRC’s demand for a report into the court's knowledge. This puts pressure on the police, as they are now answerable. 

If the SP and local police are silent, you must move the Judiciary directly.

If you have CCTV evidence showing the assault on 24th Nov was different from the FIR's version, filing this is necessary. It isn't retaliation; it is your version of the truth.

Thus for now you may 

1. Comply with bail
2. File CRAN (stay application)
3. Submit written evidence every time (create record)
4. Strengthen NHRC complaint
5. Seek protection from SP

and don't file any defamation case or a private complaint  now or take any move for retaliation.

RTI is not the best first step here instead file a “Reminder / Non-compliance Petition” before the National Human Rights Commission. RTI can be filed in parallel, but NHRC follow-up is stronger.

If there is no FIR registered so far, in your writ petition before high court you can include direction to concerned police for registering FIR 

The Section 94 BNSS is no in your favor here. it is for police to issue notice for documents and not a  tool for accused to force IO, instead you can send a written representation to the IO about it with a copy to the SP or the  Commissioner of police

quashing is to be done only inexceptional circumstances 

2) install cctv cameras in your residence 

3) complain to cimmisioner of police against local police officers refusing to take on record your documents 

4)  Courts generally hold that an accused cannot compel the production of documents through the IO (Investigating Officer) at the pre-charge stage. Instead of trying to force the IO, you should preserve your evidence and prepare to present it during the discharge stage or at the time of framing of charges, where the court has a duty to consider relevant documents that could prevent a failure of justice

Dear client

Your current situation involves malicious prosecution (e.g., wrongfully accused) and police failure to act (i.e., the police "sanctioned" the action against you) and has also included abuse of process (e.g., filing charges without proper evidence). It’s important that you approach your situation strategically and not emotionally.

Legal steps in chronological order:

Quashing & Interim Stay:

Immediately file CRAN for stay of the investigation/ charge-sheet in the Calcutta HC (your best remedy), as you would have to file the appropriate writ.

Writ Petition (Article 226):

File/modify a writ in the Calcutta HC (or your jurisdiction) seeking:

1) Court-monitored investigation, or
2) Transferring investigation to the CID or other independent agency; and
3) Preventing the police and/or accused from harassing you.

4) Investigate prior complaints made by you.

Evidence Submission:

Pursuant to Section 94 BNSS, submit written representation with attached evidence to the IO (Investigating Officer) and send copys to the SP/DGP by way of registered mail or e-mail (for record).

Non-Registration of FIR:

File SI application under Section 156(3) CrPC (now BNSS equivalent) to the Magistrate to have an FIR registered (for your complaint).

Avoid Section 175 (3) or 223 BNSS at the present time: Your attorney is correct — these will look retaliatory while you're attempting to quash.

RTI:

Yes, you should file RTI for ATR, NHRC report status, and irregularities in case diary.

Protection:

Bring an application for police protection due to threats made against your safety.

Defamation/Civil Suit Against the Police/CID for Malicious Prosecution:

File civil suit after quashing to enhance your chance of success in civil suit.

if you have any query  please feel free to conatct us 

Yes file an RTI application 

you have already taken the two most important steps, namely obtaining anticipatory bail and filing a quashing petition before the High Court. These are your primary remedies and must remain your central focus.
As regards your immediate course of action, you should first strengthen your quashing proceedings. You must promptly file the CRAN/interim application seeking stay of further proceedings, including coercive steps. Your emphasis should be on demonstrating that the FIR is a counterblast to your earlier complaint, NCR proceedings, and RTIs. The chronology in your case is extremely important and should be clearly placed before the High Court.
With respect to the conduct of the Investigating Officer in not considering your evidence, at this stage you should avoid filing multiple parallel criminal applications such as under Sections 175(3) or 223 BNSS. Your advocate’s advice in this regard is strategically correct. Filing such applications now may be viewed as retaliatory and could weaken your quashing case.
Instead, all your grievances regarding non-consideration of evidence, biased investigation, and refusal to register your counter complaint should be placed on record before the High Court in the quashing matter itself. The High Court has wide powers to examine mala fide investigation and can grant appropriate relief.
Regarding your complaint to higher police authorities and the lack of action, you may file an RTI seeking the status/Action Taken Report. This is a safe and non-confrontational step and will help build documentary record without prejudicing your case.
As far as the NHRC is concerned, you may also follow up and seek status. Filing RTI for the same is permissible and advisable.
On the question of filing criminal defamation or civil suit at this stage, it is not advisable immediately. Courts generally discourage multiplicity of proceedings arising out of the same dispute. It is strategically better to first secure relief in the quashing petition. Once the FIR is quashed or proceedings conclude in your favour, you will be in a much stronger position to initiate defamation or damages.
Regarding your concern about threats and collusion, you should document every incident and, if required, move a limited representation seeking protection, but again avoid filing multiple aggressive proceedings simultaneously.
Filing another writ alleging police harassment is possible, but it should be done only if there is clear continuing abuse and preferably after discussing how it will align with your pending writ and quashing petition. Multiple writs on overlapping issues can sometimes complicate matters.
In conclusion, your immediate focus should be on expediting the quashing petition with an interim stay, building documentary record through RTI, and avoiding parallel aggressive proceedings for the time being. Once you secure favourable orders from the High Court, you can then proceed against the complainant and erring officials in a more effective manner.

Do not start criminal defamation, civil suit, or another writ immediately; first press your pending quashing and CRAN for interim stay under Section 528 BNSS, and place all materials on threats, prior complaints and alleged police collusion there. A Section 183 statement does not by itself take away the High Court’s inherent quashing power.

For non-registration of your own case, the proper route is Section 173(4) BNSS to the SP and then a Section 175(3) BNSS application before the Magistrate with affidavit and all annexures; this is the better immediate remedy than rushing first into a complaint case under Section 223.

Section 94 BNSS is not an application by the accused; it is a police/Court power to call for documents. RTI may be used only to know ATR/status, but your real relief lies in stay/quashing, Magistrate proceedings and protection representations.

Next step you may consider

Please get one advocate to prepare a single chronological paper-book and urgently move the CRAN for stay along with a Section 175(3) Magistrate application, instead of filing multiple new cases at this stage.

Dear Sir,

You are suggested to discuss with the lawyer and if you are not conviced with opinion of one lawyer, there is no harm in changing the lawyer and then getting your things/version of case submitted to the court in proper wording so that your worries and grievances be redressed. The RTI reply may be manipulated by police and may not be of much help, rather on your application, the reply will be sought by the court and the police action will be revealed then.