JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed by the accused Nos.1 and 2 for quashing the complaint in Crime No.9/2010 and charge-sheet in C.C. No.10341/2010 pending on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader. The respondent No.2 has remained absent despite service of notice. 3. The facts leading to this petition are that on 20.01.2010 at about 8.15 a.m., the accused have assaulted respondent No.2 and hence a complaint was filed by Kodigehalli police. The respondent No.2 was referred to medical examination and a FIR No.9/2010 was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. On the same day, i.e., on 20.01.2010, the petitioners without the knowledge of the complaint filed by the respondent No.2, they too had filed a complaint against the respondent No.2 in FIR No.10/2010 before the very same Kodigehalli police. However, the police have filed B report in respect of the complaint filed by the petitioners in FIR No.10/2010, but a charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No.2 - complainant in FIR No.9/10 as C.C. No.10341/2010. Hence, the petitioners have preferred the petition for quashing the same. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that the allegations made against the petitioners are false and baseless. Despite there being a case and counter case, the police have filed B report in respect of the complaint filed by the petitioners, but whereas they have filed a charge-sheet on a complaint filed by respondent No.2 complainant in respect of the same incident without there being any valid grounds. The injuries suffered by the respondent No.2 shown in the Wound Certificate is that 'sign of inflammation in the left eye present'. But, the respondent No.2 goes to the hospital after almost three hours of the incident, which clearly indicates that a false case is concocted for the benefit of respondent No.2. The police instead of conducting proper investigation, have supported the respondent No.2 complainant and have managed to file the charge-sheet against the petitioners, which cannot be sustained in law. Hence, there are valid grounds for quashing the proceedings. 5. The respondent No.2 complainant has not appeared, as such, this Court had no opportunity to hear the submission of respondent No.2. 6. Hence, there are valid grounds for quashing the proceedings. 5. The respondent No.2 complainant has not appeared, as such, this Court had no opportunity to hear the submission of respondent No.2. 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader has submitted that on the basis of the complaint by respondent No.2, the police have conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet. There are no valid grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the records. 8. As could be seen from the complaint averments, on 20.01.2010, there was a clash between the complainant and the petitioners and in respect of the said incident, two complaints have been filed namely one by the petitioners and the other by respondent No.2. The police have filed charge-sheet based on the complaint filed by respondent No.2 complainant, but in respect of the complaint filed by the petitioners, the police have filed B summary report. 9. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the criminal proceedings are initiated by the police at the behest of the respondent No.2, only with an intention to harass the petitioners. When there were two complaints in respect of one and the same incident which occurred on 20.01.2010, the police have gone to the extent of filing charge-sheet in respect of the complaint filed by respondent No.2 and have filed B summary report in respect of the complaint filed by the petitioners, which clearly indicate that the proceedings have been initiated with an ulterior motive at the instance of respondent No.2 complainant. 10. In a decision reported in (2018) 13 SCC 747 in the case of Kartik Chandra Majee @ Kartik Chand Majee and others v. State of Jharkhand and another , the Honble Apex Court has observed as under: '9. 41. Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the categories as illustratively enumerated by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal . The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the categories as illustratively enumerated by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal . Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or harassment. When there are materials to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceeding under Category 7 as enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , which is to the following effect: (SCC p. 379, para 102): 102. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly 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.' 11. The facts and circumstances of the case is fully covered under Category-VII as enumerated in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 . 12. It is pertinent to note that initiation of further proceedings by filing of the charge-sheet have been done with a malicious intention and with ulterior motive, which is nothing but abuse of process of the Court. 13. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed, as there are valid grounds for quashing the proceedings. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER The criminal petition is allowed. The charge-sheet filed by the respondent No.1, registered as C.C. No.10341/2010 pending on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is quashed.