ORDER : G. GIRISH, J. Accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.2474/2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor, have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against them in the said case. 2. The prosecution case is that on 19.02.2015, at about 7:00 a.m, the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with dangerous weapons and criminally trespassed into the property of the de facto complainant in violation of the injunction order of Munsiff’s Court, Adoor, and caused destructions to the fencing stones and certain trees situated in that property incurring a loss of Rs.6,000/- to the de facto complainant. It is also alleged that the accused criminally intimidated the de facto complainant and pelted stones towards them. Thus, the accused are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(i), 447, 427 and 188 I.P.C read with Section 149 I.P.C. 3. The Sub Inspector of Police, Adoor registered the crime on 19.02.2015 on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the de facto complainant (third respondent). After the completion of investigation, the S.I of Police, Adoor laid a final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor. 4. In the present petition, the petitioners would contend that a false case has been foisted against them to wreak vengeance due to the set backs suffered by the de facto complainant in the civil case in respect of the property in dispute. It is thus contended that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of process of court. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor representing respondents 1 and 2 and the third respondent who appeared in person. 6. As already stated above Annexure-A1 F.I.R was registered against the petitioners on the basis of a written complaint preferred by the de facto complainant before the Sub Inspector of Police, Adoor on 19.02.2015. It is alleged in the aforesaid complaint that the petitioners committed the crime in violation of the temporary injunction order passed by the Munsiff’s Court, Adoor in O.S.No.529/2014. It is alleged in the aforesaid complaint that the petitioners committed the crime in violation of the temporary injunction order passed by the Munsiff’s Court, Adoor in O.S.No.529/2014. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the mother of the de facto complainant had instituted the above suit on 15.12.2014 in retaliation to the F.I.R registered against the de facto complainant, her mother and two others for committing encroachments upon a pathway and causing destructions therein in violation of the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction obtained by the father-in-law of the first petitioner in O.S.No.455/2010 on the files of the Munsiff’s Court, Adoor. The plaint as well as the judgment in the said case are produced as Annexures A3 and A4 respectively. Annexure A5 is the judgment rendered by the District Court, Pathanamthitta confirming the Annexure-A4 judgment of the Munsiff’s Court, Adoor. The F.I.R registered against the de facto complainant, her brother and other relatives for committing encroachments into the property involved in Annexure-A3 suit and causing destruction therein, is produced as Annexure-A6. Annexure-A7 is the final report filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor in connection with the crime registered under Annexure-A6 F.I.R. 7. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the de facto complainant’s mother instituted Annexure-A8 suit by suppressing Annexures A4 and A5 judgments rendered by the Munsiff’s Court, Adoor and District Court, Pathanamthitta. It is also submitted that the de facto complainant cleverly suppressed the subsisting civil disputes about the property while lodging the complaint leading to the registration of Annexure-A1 F.I.R against the petitioners for the alleged destruction caused in that property. Thus, it is pointed out that the conduct of the de facto complainant lodging Annexure-A1 F.I.R by concealing the existence of the decree of the Civil Court in favour of the petitioners and also the registration of Annexure-A6 F.I.R against them for the destruction caused in the property which is the subject matter of Annexure-A4 and A5 judgments, itself reveal the mala fides on their part. By adverting to Annexure-A7 final report leading to the registration of C.C.No.2240/2015 against the de facto complainant, her mother and other relatives upon the complaint preferred by the first petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Annexure-A1 F.I.R and Annexure-A2 final report in C.C.No.2474/2015 are apparently vitiated by mala fides, and instituted as a counter blast to Annexure-A6 case. 8. On going through the records referred above, it is seen that the civil disputes pertaining to a pathway through which electrical lines are drawn to the residence of the petitioners, is the cause for the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioners. It is apparent that the de facto complainant and her relatives, against whom a decree of injunction was passed by the Munsiff’s Court, Adoor and the District Court, Pathanamthitta vide Annexure-A4 and A5 judgments, suppressed those facts and resorted to Annexure-A8 suit, and thereafter the present complaint, leading to the registration of Annexure-A1 F.I.R against the petitioners. So also, it is manifest that the basic issue in all these proceedings is the right claimed by the parties over a pathway abutting their properties. Thus, it has to be concluded that the attempt of the de facto complainant, her mother and other relatives was to get the issue relating to the rival rights claimed over a pathway, dragged to the criminal court. The above conduct of the de facto complainant can only be termed as an abuse of process of court. 9. In the landmark decision rendered by the Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir and others v. State of Gujarat and Others [ (2017) 9 SCC 641 ] , the Apex Court held that, as distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute, and such cases stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. As far as the present case is concerned, the predominant element of civil dispute is manifest from the records. Annexure-A1 F.I.R leading to Annexure-A2 final report is nothing but the offshoot of the attempt of the de facto complainant and her relatives to settle scores with the petitioners by dragging them to the criminal court as an act of reprisal for the defeat suffered by them in the civil cases. Annexure-A1 F.I.R leading to Annexure-A2 final report is nothing but the offshoot of the attempt of the de facto complainant and her relatives to settle scores with the petitioners by dragging them to the criminal court as an act of reprisal for the defeat suffered by them in the civil cases. That being so, the prayer to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.2474/2015, is fully justified. In the result, the petition stands allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners (Accused Nos.1 to 5) in C.C.No.2474/2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor, are hereby quashed.