JUDGMENT Ashok G Nijagannavar, J. - This petition is filed for quashing the FIR in Haliyal P.S.Crime No.134/2019 registered on 15.10.2019, which is registered as C.C.No.10/2020 on the file of Prl . Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Haliyal, after filing of the charge sheet. 2. The facts leading to the petition are that the lands bearing Block Nos.173/1, 173/2 and 173/4 were allotted by the Government to the father and uncles of the petitioners under rehabilitation scheme as per order No.RHSS 87 dated 23.12.1977. They being the grantees are in occupation of the said lands. In the year 2011, respondents No.3 and 4 and others caused obstruction to their use and enjoyment of the lands. Therefore the father and uncles of the petitioner had filed O.S.No.89/1981 for the relief of permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed in their favour. Thereafter respondent No.4 and his family members once again started causing obstruction to their possession. Therefore P.C.No.59/2011 was filed before the JMFC Court, Haliyal , for the of fences punishable under sections 143, 147, 341, 447, 504, 506 read with section 149 ofIPC. The said private complaint was referred for investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. On 29.7.2011 the charge sheet was filed and it was registered as C.C.No.134/2012. The said case was compounded/compromised on 21.11.2014. Even then the respondents did not stop theirillegal activities and started interfering with the possession of the petitioners. Therefore section 107 of Cr.P.C. proceedings were initiated. In the said proceedings before the Taluka Executive Magistrate, the respondents gave undertaking that they will not interfere with the possession of the petitioners. Thereafter the respondents tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioners. Hence a private complaint was filed by the petitioners on 30.5.2018 and the matter was referred to police for investigation. But till today the police have not filed the charge sheet in private complaint No.36/2018. 3. In the year 2019, the petitioners filed another P.C.No.1/2019 on 30.1.2019. The matter was referred to police under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. But no charge sheet is filed till this day. Later, on 15.10.2019 when respondent No.4 filed the complaint against the petitioners before the Haliyal police, FIR was registered in P.S.Crime No.134/2019 and after investigation the charge sheet has been filed which is numbered as C.C.No.10/2019. Being aggrieved by the initiation of the criminal proceedings, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Later, on 15.10.2019 when respondent No.4 filed the complaint against the petitioners before the Haliyal police, FIR was registered in P.S.Crime No.134/2019 and after investigation the charge sheet has been filed which is numbered as C.C.No.10/2019. Being aggrieved by the initiation of the criminal proceedings, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the respondent State. Perused the entire records available at this stage. 5. Reiterating the contentions made in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that despite fling of three private complaints by the petitioners against the respondent and others, no legal action was taken by the police. Subsequently at the instance of the false complaint filed by the respondent No.4, the police have registered the case and have filed the charge sheet which cannot be sustained in law. Basically the dispute was in connection with the land granted to the petitioners by the Government. There was also a decree passed by the Civil Court restraining respondent No.4 from interfering with the possession of the petitioners. Thereafter the criminal proceedings are initiated with a mala fide intention to harass the petitioners, as such the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. 6. Per contra, the learned HCGP submitted that there are no valid grounds to quash the proceedings as the police have conducted full fledged investigation and have submitted the charge sheet, as there is prima facie material to show that the petitioners have committed the alleged of fences. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again spoken about the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C. and has laid down several principles which govern the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C. In a decision in State of Karnataka vs. L.Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding i fit comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. 8. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, (1992) SCC(Cri) 426 has elaborately considered the scope and ambit of section 482 of Cr.P.C. in the context of quashing the proceedings in criminalinvestigation and enumerated the following 7 categories of cases by way ofillustration where power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or secure the ends of justice. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even i f they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any of fence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, i f any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable of fence, justifying an investigation by police of ficers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any of fence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable of fence but constitute only a noncognizable of fence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is suf ficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a speci fic provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing ef ficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is mani festly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 9. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is mani festly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 9. Having regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP, this Court has gone through the entire records. It is seen that after the decree passed by the Civil Court in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners have filed private complaint on three occasions. No action is taken by the police against the respondents. Thereafter when the respondent No.4 filed a complaint against the petitioners, the police have conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet. The medical records do not make out the case that they have sustained grievous injuries. The injury certificate shows that there are only scratch marks found on the person of the respondent victim. Thus it is evident that on account of the rivalry because of the land dispute, a complaint has been filed with a mala fide intention to harass the petitioners. The uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR disclose that the criminal proceedings is mani festly attended with mala fides and the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds to hold that the proceedings initiated cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is allowed in part. The proceedings initiated in Haliyal P.S.Crime No.134/2019 registered on 15.10.2019, which is registered as C.C.No.10/2020 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Haliyal , is hereby quashed.