ORDER : V. Sujatha, J. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.09 of 2017 on the file of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvidand the order dated 14.10.2016 in C.F.No.3538 of 2016 passed by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid. 2. The petitioner herein is the sole accused and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the complainants. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein have submitted a private complaint on the file of the II Additional First Class Judicial Magistrate, Nuzivid stating that the petitioner herein has informed them that she is the sole and exclusive owner of the property in the agreement of sale of schedule property to an extent of Acs.3.75 cents in R.S.No.8-3; that she got the said property from different vendors i.e. Acs.1.34 cents vide document No.1077/2003, Acs.0.54 cents vide document no.1322/2003,Acs.1.03 cents from Seelam Seethavaram and Acs.0.84 cents from Peduri Savithri. Believing the said information, the complainants have executed an agreement of sale on 16.06.2014 while paying an advance sale consideration of Rs.20,20,000/-. The agreement contains specific conditions and the major condition is that the aforesaid sale advance amount would be forfeited if the complainants fail to register the schedule property within the stipulated period of 45 days from the date of agreement. Though the complainants were ready for registration of the schedule property in their favour, the petitioner herein has intentionally postponed the registration in order to gain in view of the forfeiture clause in agreement. On 27.08.2014, the petitioner herein has published a paper publication stating that she was discharged from the agreement dated 16.06.2014 as the complainants failed to fulfill their part. As such, the complainants issued a legal notice to the petitioner and have also filed a suit in O.S.No.97 of 2014 on the file of IX Additional District Judge at Nuzvid, for specific performance. Pending the said suit, the complainants got to know that the petitioner is the rightful owner of land to an extent of 1.34 cents but not the remaining extent of land as stated in the agreement, which actually belong to the State Government. Immediately, on 22.06.2016, the complainants rushed to Agiripalli Police Station for filing complaint with the Station House Officer, but the Station House Officer failed to register an FIR against the petitioner. Immediately, on 22.06.2016, the complainants rushed to Agiripalli Police Station for filing complaint with the Station House Officer, but the Station House Officer failed to register an FIR against the petitioner. Having considered the private complaint, the Court below in C.F.No.3538 of 2016 passed an order on 14.10.2016 directing the S.H.O of Agiripalli Police Station to investigate the matter further and to file report. 3. In pursuance of the said order dated 14.10.2016, the police have registered the case in Crime No.206 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 423, 418 of IPC read with 156(3) Cr.P.C. After due investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nuzvid in C.C.No.09 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 423, 418 of IPC read with 156(3) Cr.P.C. The present criminal petition has been filed to quash the charge-sheet in C.C.No.09 of 2017 and the order dated 14.10.2016 in C.F.No.3538 of 2016. 4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating contentions raised in the petition has further contended that the learned Judge, without applying his mind whether there are prima facie allegations that are material for the alleged offence warranting any investigation by the Police under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., has taken cognizance on the private complaint filed by the complainants, without assigning any reasons whatsoever for taking cognizance. He further contended that the Station House Officer, Agiripalli Police Station has failed to apply his mind in registering the FIR treating the direction of the Court below as the one under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and has filed the charge sheet, though there is no material on record that makes out a case as alleged. He further contended that the complainants have filed the present private complaint by making similar allegations as was done in the O.S.No.96 of 2014. They have filed the complaint after meeting their waterloo in the civil court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court that a final decree was passed in O.S.No.96 of 2014 which on 30.08.2017 which was also confirmed in the appeal suit on 03.08.2022. As such, the proceedings in C.C.No.09 of 2017 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid are liable to be quashed. 5. As such, the proceedings in C.C.No.09 of 2017 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid are liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 contended that the petitioner herein has depicted that she is the rightful owner of the property to a total extent of Acs.3.75 cents as mentioned in the agreement of sale of the schedule property. As such, the complainants have paid Rs.20,20,000/- towards advance sale consideration, but, however, the petitioner herein has failed to register the schedule property in favour of the complainants. Though the mistake is on her part, she has refused to refund the amount of Rs.20,20,000/- paid towards advance sale consideration. As such, they were constrained to file O.S.No.96 of 2014 wherein the court below has directed the petitioner herein to return the advance amount of Rs.20,20,000/- along with interest @6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree. However, she is the rightful owner of the land to an extent of Acs.1.34 cents but not the remaining extent of land as the same belongs to the State Government. The complainants, having paid Rs.20,20,000/- towards advance sale consideration to the petitioner herein, were cheated by her as she portrayed that the entire land belongs to her. As such, the petitioner is liable to be tried and prosecuted for the offences of cheating, fraud and as she has tried to sell Government property depicting as if it is her own property by showing counterfeit and swindled documents. Hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows : “Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.09 of 2017 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Nuzvid and the order dated 14.10.2016in C.F.No.3538 of 2016 passed therein, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 7. Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is an obvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the administration of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but merely safeguards existing powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice. 8. Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows: In “R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 ”, the Apex Court laid down the following principles : “(i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice; (ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want of sanction; (iii) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and (iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.” 9. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in “Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar, AIR 1990 SC 494 ” Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 10. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the Complainants filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C before the learned II Additional First Class Judicial Magistrate, Nuzivid. Upon receiving the private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein, the learned Magistrate has passed the following order in C.F.No.3538 of 2016 on 14.10.2016 : “Complainants present. Having heard the counsel for complainants and perused the material on records and I feel that it is necessary to forward the complaint to S.H.O., Agiripalli for further investigation u/Sec 202 Cr.P.C and to file report. Hence complaint is forwarded to S.H.O. Agiripalli for further investigation u/Sec. 202 Cr.P.C and to file report…” 11. For better understanding, Section 202 of Cr.P.C., is extracted hereunder : “202. Postponement of issue of process. Hence complaint is forwarded to S.H.O. Agiripalli for further investigation u/Sec. 202 Cr.P.C and to file report…” 11. For better understanding, Section 202 of Cr.P.C., is extracted hereunder : “202. Postponement of issue of process. (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192 may, if he thinks fit, [and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction] [Inserted by Act 25 of 2005, Section 19 (w.e.f. 23-6-2006).] postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding :Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made, - (a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or (b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 200. (2) In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath :Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. (3) If an investigation under sub-section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Court on an officer-in-charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant.” 12. It is evident from the above said order dated 14.10.2016 that the learned Magistrate has not followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 of Cr.P.C. while passing the said order and did not assign reasons for taking the case on file. 13. In “Abhijit Pawar Vs. It is evident from the above said order dated 14.10.2016 that the learned Magistrate has not followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 of Cr.P.C. while passing the said order and did not assign reasons for taking the case on file. 13. In “Abhijit Pawar Vs. Hemand Madhukar Nimbalkar and another, (2017) 3 SCC 528 ”, the Apex Court under similar circumstances held as follows : “The steps taken by the Magistrate Under Section 190(1)(a) Code of Criminal Procedure followed by Section 204 Code of Criminal Procedure should reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and the statements and he is satisfied that there is ground for proceeding further in the matter by asking the person against whom the violation of law is alleged, to appear before the court. The satisfaction on the ground for proceeding would mean that the facts alleged in the complaint would constitute an offence, and when considered along with the statements recorded, would, prima facie, make the accused answerable before the court. No doubt, no formal order or a speaking order is required to be passed at that stage. The Code of Criminal Procedure requires speaking order to be passed Under Section 203 Code of Criminal Procedure when the complaint is dismissed and that too the reasons need to be stated only briefly. In other words, the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of each and every complaint filed before him and issue process as a matter of course. There must be sufficient indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered along with the statements recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation Under Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure, if any, the accused is answerable before the criminal court, there is ground for proceeding against the accused Under Section 204 Code of Criminal Procedure, by issuing process for appearance. The application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. If there is no such indication in a case where the Magistrate proceeds Under Sections 190/204 Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court. If there is no such indication in a case where the Magistrate proceeds Under Sections 190/204 Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court. To be called to appear before the criminal court as an accused is serious matter affecting one's dignity, self-respect and image in society. Hence, the process of criminal court shall not be made a weapon of harassment.” 14. The law laid down in the said case is applicable to the facts of the present case. 15. In “Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 ” the Apex Court held that summoning of an accused in a criminal cases is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The Apex Court further held as follows : “The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” 16. The Apex Court in “Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik GMBH Vs. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya, (2024) 2 SCC 86 ”, held as follows : “In the context of a complaint of defamation, at the stage the Magistrate proceeds to issue process, he has to form his opinion based on the allegations in the complaint and other material (obtained through the process referred to in Section 200/Section 202) as to whether 'sufficient ground for proceeding' exists as distinguished from 'sufficient ground for conviction', which has to be left for determination at the trial and not at the stage when process is issued. Although there is nothing in the law which in express terms mandates the Magistrate to consider whether any of the Exceptions to Section 499, Indian Penal Code is attracted, there is no bar either. After all, what is 'excepted' cannot amount to defamation on the very terms of the provision.” 17. The Supreme Court, time and again, while dealing with cases where cognizance is taken by the Magistrate under Section 202 Cr.P.C., stated that the application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order. The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will not be sufficient. After going through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C., should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. 18. An order pronounced on the bench shall contain the reasoning since the judge speaks with authority by his judgment/order. The strength of a judgment/order lies in its reasoning and it should therefore be convincing. Clarity of exposition is always essential. In the words of Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Sabyasachi Mukharji, the requirement of a good judgment/order is reason. Judgment is of value on the strength of its reasons. The weight of a judgment/order, its binding character or its persuasive character depends on the presentation and articulation of reasons. Reason, therefore, is the soul and spirit of a good judgment/order. When an order is pronounced without reasoning, it is not an order in the eye of law for the reason that the requirement of reasoning either by trial Court or Appellate Court is to convey the mind of the judge while deciding such an issue before the Court. A judge is required to apply his/her mind and give focused consideration to rival contentions raised by both parties. 19. A decision without reasons is like grass without root, the requirement to record reasons is one of the principles of natural justice as well and where a statute required recording of reasons in support of the order, it must be done by the authorities concerned as held by the Apex Court in “S.M. Mukerji v. Union of India, 1990 Crl.L.J. 2148”. In view of the principle laid down in the above judgment, it can be said that the order passed by the Court below is nothing but a slipshod one. 20. In “Mehmood Ul Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 ”, while dealing with the scope of Section 202 of Cr.P.C., the Apex Court held as follows : “The steps taken by the Magistrate Under Section 190(1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure followed by Section 204 of Code of Criminal Procedure should reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and the statements and he is satisfied that there is ground for proceeding further in the matter by asking the person against whom the violation of law is alleged, to appear before the court. The satisfaction on the ground for proceeding would mean that the facts alleged in the complaint would constitute an offence, and when considered along with the statements recorded, would, prima facie, make the accused answerable before the court. No doubt, no formal order or a speaking order is required to be passed at that stage. The Code of Criminal Procedure requires speaking order to be passed Under Section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure when the complaint is dismissed and that too the reasons need to be stated only briefly. In other words, the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of each and every complaint filed before him and issue process as a matter of course. There must be sufficient indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered along with the statements recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation Under Section 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure, if any, the accused is answerable before the criminal court, there is ground for proceeding against the accused Under Section 204 of Code of Criminal Procedure, by issuing process for appearance. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. If there is no such indication in a case where the Magistrate proceeds Under Sections 190/204 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court Under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court. If there is no such indication in a case where the Magistrate proceeds Under Sections 190/204 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court Under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court. To be called to appear before criminal court as an accused is serious matter affecting one's dignity, self respect and image in society. Hence, the process of criminal court shall not be made a weapon of harassment.” 21. Even in the case on hand, the learned Magistrate has mechanically referred the private complaint exercising the powers under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., but has failed to give any reason as to why such investigation has been ordered. Merely stating that the Magistrate has reviewed the complaint, examined the documents, heard the complainant and feeling it fit that a further investigation would be necessary, is insufficient. The order must also express the motive behind the Magistrate’s decision to direct an investigation under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. There must be sufficient indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered along with the statements recorded, would prima facie, make the accused answerable before the court; which principle was not followed in the present case. 22. Even otherwise, it can be seen that the complainants herein have filed a suit vide O.S.No.96 of 2014 before the XV Additional District Judge, Nuzvid for specific performance of sale agreement dated 16.06.2014 in respect of suit schedule property said to have been executed by the petitioner herein in favour of the complainants. On a perusal of the depositions of the complainants herein in the said suit, it can be observed that the same averments were made even in the present private complaint by the unofficial respondents herein. A judgment was passed by the court below on 30.08.2017; partly decreeing the suit by directing the petitioner herein to return the advance amount of Rs.20,20,000/- received by her together with interest @6% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and also on the same interest from the date of decree till realization within 3 months. However, the specific performance of suit sale agreement in respect of the schedule property was rejected. However, the specific performance of suit sale agreement in respect of the schedule property was rejected. Subsequently, the petitioner herein has preferred an appeal suit against the decree passed on 30.08.2017, which was however dismissed. 23. It is to be noted that the complainants have filed a private complaint on 28.07.2016 before the II Additional First Class Judicial Magistrate, Nuzivid on 28.07.2016, against the petitioner and subsequently FIR.No.206 of 2016 was registered. The allegations made in the said private complaint on 28.07.2016 against the petitioner herein were substantially similar to the allegations made by them in O.S.No.96 of 2014, with inordinate delay. It is clear that the complainants have filed the private complaint after meeting their Waterloo in the civil court and with a sole intention of harassing the petitioner herein and enmeshing the petitioner in long and arduous criminal proceedings. In the case of G. Sagar Suri and Another V. State of U.P. and Others, (2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 INSC 34, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. 24. In view of the above discussion and in view of the principle laid down in the aforementioned pronouncements by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of, this Court feels that the proceedings in C.C.No.09 of 2017 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid and the order dated 14.10.2016 in C.F.No.3538 of 2016 are apt to be quashed. 25. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.09 of 2017 and the order dated 14.10.2016 in C.F.No.3538 of 2016 passed by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid are quashed herewith. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.