ORDER : A. Badharudeen, J. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.592/2020 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam are the petitioners and they seek quashment of the said proceedings. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Although notice served upon the 2nd respondent, she did not turn up. 3. The prosecution case is that at about 14.10 hours on 04.03.2019 accused Nos. 1 to 5, who are the officials of Matrimony.com compelled the defacto complainant, who was working as State Head in the same concern to resign and leave the job, after wrongfully restraining her and threatening her. Thereby the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 5 alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 341 and 506 (i) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC'). 4. While pursuing the relief of quashment, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that this is a false case foisted to wreck vengeance against the officials of Matrimony.com on detection of malpractices against the de facto complainant and as a result of the same she was forced to leave the concern voluntarily. He pointed out that as per Annexure-B, there was disciplinary proceedings against the de facto complainant initiated on the basis of a report dated 20.02.2019 and as per the report the allegation of the defacto complainant was found unsustainable in the matter of getting her resignation from the concern forcefully. He has also pointed out that earlier also the defacto complainant had filed similar complaint in the year 2020 and the police closed the complaint as per Annexure E, copy of complaint register produced from Ernakulam Town South Police Station, Kochi City. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, since this case was foisted without support of any materials and as a retaliatory measure to avoid the disciplinary action, this complaint would require quashment. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor invited the attention of this Court in page Nos.57-58 of the paper book where Annexure F complaint filed on 11.03.2020 by the de facto complainant is available. In the said complaint, the prosecution allegation is narrated. Accordingly FIR was registered on 15.03.2020. 6. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor invited the attention of this Court in page Nos.57-58 of the paper book where Annexure F complaint filed on 11.03.2020 by the de facto complainant is available. In the said complaint, the prosecution allegation is narrated. Accordingly FIR was registered on 15.03.2020. 6. On perusal of the records, it could be gathered that the de facto complainant who was working at matrimony.com as State Head was found involved in malpractices and the same was detected by the Superior Officials. Accordingly, she was forced to quit the job. Annexure B enquiry report in this regard would show that there was an enquiry during 2019 itself, whereby the malpractices committed by the de facto complainant was found. Later, she quit the job. 7. It was after culmination of the disciplinary proceedings as on 03.07.2019, the present litigation started in the year 2020 as an afterthought. It could be gathered that the allegations in the complaint prima facie not believable at the instance of the de facto complainant, who faced allegation of malpractice and on enquiry it was found in the affirmative. Ultimately quit the job as a sequal thereof. 8. Profitably, in the decision in Vineet Kumar & Ors. v. State of U.P & Anr., reported in [2017 KHC 6274 : AIR 2017 SC 1884 : 2017 (13) SCC 369 ], the Apex Court held in paragraph 39 that, inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 [ AIR 1960 SC 866 ], 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. 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 [ AIR 1960 SC 866 ], 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 material to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding under Category 7 as enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra), which is to the following effect : “(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide 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. Similarly, in another decision in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P. reported in [2023 KHC 7029 : 2023 KHC OnLine 7029 : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 613 : 2023 KLT OnLine 1751 : AIR 2023 SC 3709 : AIR OnLine 2023 SC 602 : 2023 CriLJ 3896], the Apex Court while considering the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, in paragraph 12 held that, ‘whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under S.482 of the Cr.P.C. or Art.226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation / registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.’ 10. Therefore, the legal position is clear that quashment of criminal proceedings can be resorted to when the prosecution materials do not constitute materials to attract the offence alleged to be committed. Similarly, the Court owes a duty to look into the other attending circumstances, over and above the averments, to see whether there are materials to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide intention and instituted maliciously with ulterior motives. Once the said fact is established, the same is a good reason to quash the criminal proceedings. Scrutinising the facts of the case as discussed, this petition is liable to succeed. In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure A Final Report and all further proceedings in CC No.592/2020 on the files of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam, arose out of Crime No.104/2020 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station, Kochi, against the petitioners/A2 to A5 stand quashed.