ORDER : This writ petition is filed by the petitioners-A1 to A3 under Article 226 of the constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the FIR No.220 of 2014 dated 16.07.2014 registered by the Police, Shahinayatgunj, for the offences under Sections 420, 506 read with 34 IPC against the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and in violation of the provisions of IPC. 2. The petitioner No.2 filed an affidavit in support of the petition submitting that the petitioner No.1 was his elder brother and the petitioner No.3 was his father. His father was the Proprietor of M/s. New Hyderabad Agencies, situated at Begumbazar, Hyderabad. The said Proprietary concern was engaged in the business of selling various food grains, groceries and allied products manufactured by various companies, as a wholesaler. On 06.05.2014 at 2.00 PM one Mr. Bablu Bhati, Proprietor of Snajay Kumar Shantilal and Kirana Shop came to their shop and gave order patti of tin foods and sauce items and instructed their employee Mr. Devendra Lotwala to pack the same and that he would collect the items after sometime. At about 6.45 PM Mr. Bablu Bhati called upon telephone and enquired about the packing of items. Their employee informed him that the items were ready and asked him to take the same after paying the required amount, then said Bablu Bhati became angry and abused their employee in most filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. After few minutes, Mr. Bablu Bhati along with the respondent No.3, who was his brother and another person, came to their shop, illegally trespassed into the cash cabin and man-handled their employee, assaulted him with hands and telephone instrument. On seeing the incident their father, the petitioner No.3 and Mr.Mayur Udavani came to the rescue of their employee. The said persons left the place threatening with dire consequences. Their employee lodged a complaint with the respondent No.2 police on 06.05.2014 at 9.50 PM and the respondent No.2 registered the said complaint as FIR No.139 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 448, 323, 506 read with 34 IPC against Mr. Bablu Bhati, respondent No.3 and another person and the respondent No.2 after completion of investigation filed charge sheet dated 30.05.2014 before the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 3. Bablu Bhati, respondent No.3 and another person and the respondent No.2 after completion of investigation filed charge sheet dated 30.05.2014 before the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 3. As a counter blast to the above case, the respondent No.3 had filed a false and frivolous complaint before the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts at Nampally against the petitioners. The Court without looking into the facts and without appreciating as to whether any offence was made out as alleged, simply referred the matter to the respondent No.2 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. Based on the orders of the Court, the respondent No.2 registered FIR No.220 of 2014 dated 16.07.2014 against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 420, 506 read with 34 IPC. The respondent No.2 after registering the FIR, issued notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. to the petitioners calling upon them to explain as to why they should not be arrested in the case on the said charges. No case was made out under Sections 420 and 506 IPC. As per the FIR, no amount was paid by the respondent No.3 or the person claiming through him for the items asked to be packed. Therefore, there was no element of cheating. The averments of the complaint also would not make out any case under Section 506 IPC against the petitioners. The complaint was an abuse of process of law and prayed to issue a writ of certiorari by quashing the FIR No.220 of 2014. 4. Notice was issued to the respondent No.3. The respondents No.1 and 2 were represented by the learned Government Pleader for Home. There is no representation for the respondent No.3 even after service of notice. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Home. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No.3, father of petitioners No.1 and 2 died on 19.04.2007 and filed copy of his death certificate. There is no representation for the respondent No.3 even after service of notice. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Home. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No.3, father of petitioners No.1 and 2 died on 19.04.2007 and filed copy of his death certificate. He contended that the learned Magistrate had not applied his mind while referring the case under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Without following the procedure under Section 154 Cr.P.C, the case cannot be referred under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2015 (6) SCC 287 and of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi in M. Hanumantha Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, 2019 (23) ALD (Crl.) 923 (AP) . 7. Learned Government Pleader for Home reported to decide the petition on merits. 8. Perused the record. The record would disclose that with regard to the incident occurred on 06.05.2014 at the shop of the petitioners as stated by the petitioner No.2 in his affidavit, a report was given by their employee by name Devendra Lotwala on 06.05.2014 at 9.50 PM and the same was registered by the police as Crime No.139 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 448, 323 and 506 read with 34 IPC against one Bablu Bhati, Sanjay Bhati (R-3) and another person. With regard to the same incident, the respondent No.3 had filed a private complaint before the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 19.06.2014 for the offences under Sections 420, 506 read with 34 IPC against the petitioners and the same was referred to the police for investigation and report under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered the same as Crime No.220 of 2014 for the said offences. The complainant alleged that he along with one of his customer visited the shop of the petitioners – accused on 06.05.2014 to give an order patti of tin foods, kisan jam and sauce items and instructed to pack the above items and advised the accused persons to send along with cash memo and to collect the payment then and there for which the petitioner No.1 agreed and stated that within an hour all the items mentioned in the patti would be delivered through his shop assistant and advised the complainant to pay him. The complainant in good faith believed the petitioner No.1 and waited for more than an hour but none of the persons from the accused shop visited the complainant as such, the complainant telephoned to the petitioner No.1 to enquire about the matter. The telephone was attended by the shop assistant of the accused persons. The said assistant responded in a rude behaviour and abused the complainant in filthy language and stated that he was advised by A1 that the complainant must pay the cash and take patti items. As such, A1 played fraud upon the complainant by instructing his assistant not to deliver the list of patti at the complainant’s destination and the same would amount to criminal intimidation. He stated that as per the instructions of the assistant, he visited the shop of the accused. Again accused Nos.2 and 3 misbehaved with him and threatened him with dire consequences. He was running a business under the name and style of Sanjay Kumar Shantilal & Kirana shop at Begumbazar, Hyderabad and had good image and high reputation in the market, he was an office bearer of the said market, the accused Nos.1 to 3 (petitioners) with criminal conspiracy to degrade his image, used their shop assistant and got registered a criminal case against him vide Crime No.139 of 2014 without any cause or reason. He contended that the police kept a deaf ear when he made his plea before them and failed to receive his complaint and did not register the case against A1 to A3, as such filed the private complaint. 9. The learned XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate without recording any reasons referred the matter to the Station House Officer of Shahinayath Gunj, Hyderabad for investigation and report under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. 10. 9. The learned XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate without recording any reasons referred the matter to the Station House Officer of Shahinayath Gunj, Hyderabad for investigation and report under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava case (supra) held that : “29. At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellows citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same. 30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores. 31. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.” 11. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in M. Hanumantha Rao case (supra) held that : “19. If the decision in Anil Kumar (2013) 10 SCC 705 (supra) is perused, as approved in Priyanka Srivastava's (2015) 6 SCC 287 (supra) case, the application of mind by the Magistrate is to be reflected in the order. It is not enough to state that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the factors that weighed with the Magistrate to order the investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. should be reflected in the order, although a detailed explanation or detailed reasons are not warranted. 20. Apart from this, in Priyanka Srivastava's case (2015) 6 SCC 287 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court said that the affidavit should accompany the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The affidavit in this case is very very brief. It does not disclose any facts mentioned in the complaint. 20. Apart from this, in Priyanka Srivastava's case (2015) 6 SCC 287 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court said that the affidavit should accompany the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The affidavit in this case is very very brief. It does not disclose any facts mentioned in the complaint. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India noted that unscrupulous litigants can take steps in the Court of law and in order to prevent an unscrupulous litigant from taking advantage of the system and to encourage honest citizens to have free access to judicial system, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India mandated the filing of an affidavit. This is the purpose of the affidavit. The affidavit in the opinion of this Court should contain a statement on oath at least briefly of all the relevant particulars and events/offences which are mentioned in the complaint that is filed. This would enable the Magistrate to verify the truth and also the veracity of the allegations made in the complaint. Mere filing of any affidavit will not suffice. Sufficient details of the alleged offence with dates and description of the events however brief are necessary in the affidavit to meet the test laid down in Priyanka Srivastava's (2015) 6 SCC 287 (supra) case. This affidavit would make the applicant more responsible. If the present affidavit is seen, it is clear that the same does not meet the tests laid down in Priyanka Srivastava's (2015) 6 SCC 287 (supra) case. 21. Apart from this, in para 31 of Priyanka Srivastava's case (2015) 6 SCC 287 (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has clearly held that there has to be a prior application under Section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. For filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, both these aspects must be spelt out in the application and documentary proof of this must also be filed. 22. If the present case is viewed against the back drop of this case law, this Court has come to a conclusion that the judgment in Priyanka Srivastava's (2015) 6 SCC 287 (supra) case will have to hold the field. It is the latest exposition on the law on this subject. It has taken into consideration the earlier cases on the subject and has come to a conclusion. It is the latest exposition on the law on this subject. It has taken into consideration the earlier cases on the subject and has come to a conclusion. The order of the learned Magistrate in this case does not meet the tests that are laid down in Priyanka Srivastava's (2015) 6 SCC 287 (supra) case. If the impugned order is examined, it does not disclose the factors that weighed with the learned Magistrate in coming to the said conclusion. Therefore, the impugned order runs foul of the law laid down in Anil Kumar (2013) 10 SCC 705 and Prinyanka Srivastava (2015) 6 SCC 287 (supra) cases. Apart from this, the issue of delay has also not apparently attracted the attention of the learned Magistrate. In Dilawarsing's (2007) 12 SCC 641 (supra) case, which is referred to earlier, the Hon'ble Supreme Court sounded a note of caution and said that if there is a delay in coming to a Court or before the Police, the Court should view the allegation carefully and look for a satisfactory explanation. The fact that in the impugned order, this issue does not appear that the Magistrate has taken note of the law as laid down in Dilawarsing's (2007) 12 SCC 641 (supra) case or of the delay. 24. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of the further proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of the Court. Due to the non _ application of mind; the routine manner in which the complaint has been referred to the Police for investigation, failure to notice the mandate in Priyanka Srivastava's (2015) 6 SCC 287 (supra) case; this Court has to come to a conclusion that continuation of this process would amount to an abuse of process of law.” 12. Due to the non _ application of mind; the routine manner in which the complaint has been referred to the Police for investigation, failure to notice the mandate in Priyanka Srivastava's (2015) 6 SCC 287 (supra) case; this Court has to come to a conclusion that continuation of this process would amount to an abuse of process of law.” 12. Considering the above cases and as the order of the Magistrate does not disclose the factors that weighed with him and the complainant had not filed prior applications made by him under Section 154 (1) and 154(3) Cr.P,.C. with necessary documents to that effect and no affidavit was filed by him under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava case (supra) and the Magistrate had not considered the issue of delay as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi [ (2007) 12 SCC 641 ] and the counter case filed by the petitioners-accused which was mentioned in the complaint itself by the complainant, the impugned order runs foul of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa [( 2013 10 SCC 705 ], Priyanka Srivastava case (supra) and Dilwar Singh v. State of Delhi. 13. The allegations in the compliant also would not prima facie attract the offence of cheating as no amount was paid by the complainant or persons claiming through him to the petitioners for the items which they asked them to pack. No ingredients of criminal intimidation were also made out against the petitioners from the complaint. As such, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is considered as an abuse of law and hence, liable to be quashed. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in FIR No.220 of 2014 on the file of Shahinayath Gunj Police Station, Hyderabad, against the petitioners – accused. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.