ORDER : V. Sujatha, J. The Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 07.05.2018 in C.F.R. No.1280 of 2018 passed by the First Class Judicial Magistrate, Kamalapuram and the consequential registration of the FIR No.126 of 2018, dated 18.05.2018 by the Station House Officer, Yerraguntla Police Station, for the offences under Sections 420, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No.2 herein is the complainant. On 09.04.2018, a complaint was given by the complainant stating that the complainant and both the accused are residents of Yerraguntla town and that the complainant is a lorry owner by profession. In the month of January, 2017, both the accused approached the complainant’s house and stated they are going to run a chit for Rs.20 lakhs having 16 installments and that they would take 4% commission. Having said so, the accused have induced the complainant to join in the chit promising good profits; in pursuance of which the complainant has joined in the chit which started from 20.02.2017. The complainant further stated that he made four others to join in the said chit believing the accused. Accordingly, from 20.02.2017 everyone have started making payments through installments and on 05.07.2017, a second chit was started by the accused luring the complainant and the aforesaid four persons. Subsequently, the complainant got to know that the accused are hiding and when the complainant went to the house of the accused on 26.02.2018 and demanded them to repay the chit amount, the accused have threatened the complainant with dire consequences. It is further stated in the complaint that when the complainant has approached the S.H.O. Yeraguntla P.S., for giving complaint against the accused, no action was taken against them. As such, a complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, but of no avail. Hence, aggrieved by the aforesaid circumstances, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the accused under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., read with Section 200 of Cr.P.C., on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram. Accordingly, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram has passed the impugned orders in C.F.R.No.1280/2018 dated 07.05.2018 forwarding the complaint to S.H.O., Yerraguntla P.S. under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., and for registration, investigation of the complaint. Accordingly, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram has passed the impugned orders in C.F.R.No.1280/2018 dated 07.05.2018 forwarding the complaint to S.H.O., Yerraguntla P.S. under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., and for registration, investigation of the complaint. Pursuant to which, an F.I.R. vide F.I.R.No.126/2018, dated 18.05.2018 was registered at Yerraguntla P.S., for the offences punishable under Section 420, 506 read with 34 of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the learned Judge has not applied his mind while passing the impugned orders dated 07.05.2018 as he has not taken into consideration whether there are prima facie allegations and material for the alleged offence warranting any investigation by the Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. It is further contended that the learned Judge has failed to see that the power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., can be exercised only if the complaint discloses the commission of the offence. He further stated that as the learned Judge has committed a serious illegality in directing the Police to register a crime, which amounts to taking cognizance of an offence without even prima facie enquiry, the order dated 07.05.2018 in C.F.R.No.1280 of 2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioners would constitute offence punishable under Sections 420, 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., accordingly, the SI of police examined the complainant and nine other witnesses and recorded their statements.Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. When the criminal petition came up for hearing on 25.07.2018, this Court has passed the following order in I.A.No.1 of 2018 : “…There shall be an interim stay of all further proceedings in CFR No.1280/18 on The file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram, as reference of private complaint to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., is contrary to the guidelines of the Apex Court in “Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [ (2015) 6 SCC 287 ], for a period of two months.” 6. State of Uttar Pradesh [ (2015) 6 SCC 287 ], for a period of two months.” 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 order dated 07.05.2018 in C.F.R.No.1280 of 2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram and the F.I.R.No.126 of 2018, dated 18.05.2018 filed against the petitioners are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction 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. 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. 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. 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 ” 10. In “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335” the Apex Court considered in detail the powers of High Court under Section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Apex Court summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint : “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (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. 11. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 12. As per the material available on record, it can be seen that the petitioners have approached the respondent No.2 herein stating that they are going to run a chit for Rs.20 lakhs which has 16 instalments and that the petitioners would take a commission of 4%. Accordingly, the respondent No.2 along with four others has started first chit from 20.02.2017 in which they have paid 12 instalments each and a second chit was also started from 05.07.2017 wherein 7 instalments were paid by everyone. It is further alleged in the complaint that the petitioners herein have threatened the respondent No.2 when he has approached the petitioners requesting for repayment. As the petitioners have denied the same, the complainant approached the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram. Thereafter, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram has passed an order dated 07.05.2018 in C.F.R.No.1280 of 2018 as under : “Counsel is present. Heard. Perused the record. It is a fit case to investigate the matter. Hence, the Complaint is forwarded to SHO, Yerraguntla P S u/S 156(3) Cr.P.C for registration and investigation and complied the report on or before 18.07.2018. 13. The order dated 07.05.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram and the consequential FIR registered in Crime No.126 of 2018 on 18.05.2018 by the SHO, Yerraguntla Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, are under challenge. 13. The order dated 07.05.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram and the consequential FIR registered in Crime No.126 of 2018 on 18.05.2018 by the SHO, Yerraguntla Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, are under challenge. It can be seen that the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order dated 18.05.2018 while exercising power under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. For better understanding, the aforesaid Section is extracted hereunder : “156. Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable case.-(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, witout the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned.” 14. The scope of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases. The Apex Court in Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat, (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 692, has examined the requirement of the application of mind by the Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) and held that where jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, in such a case, the Magistrate cannot refer the matter under Section 156(3) against a public servant without a valid sanction order. 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 156(3) Cr.P.C., should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. In the impugned order dated 07.05.2018 (extracted under paragraph 12), this Court finds no reasons for ordering such investigation. 15. After going through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. In the impugned order dated 07.05.2018 (extracted under paragraph 12), this Court finds no reasons for ordering such investigation. 15. The direction under Section 156(3) is to be issued only after application of mind by the Magistrate and when the Magistrate does not take cognizance and does not find it necessary to postpone instance of process and finds a case made out to proceed forthwith, direction under the said provision is issued. In other words, where on account of credibility of information available, or weighing the interest of justice it is considered appropriate to straightaway direct investigation, such a direction is issued. Cases where Magistrate takes cognizance and postpones issuance of process are cases where the Magistrate has yet to determine the existence of sufficient ground to proceed.(The Apex Court in Ramdev Food Products Private Limited Vs. State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007) 16. The same principle has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and another V. State of U.P. and others, (2015) 6 SCC 287 , stating that the learned Magistrate has to remain vigilant with regard to the allegations made and the nature of allegations and not to issue directions without proper application of mind. The Magistrate has also to bear in mind that sending the matter would be conducive to justice and then he may pass the requisite order. 17. Even in the case on hand, the learned Magistrate has mechanically referred the private complaint exercising the powers under Section 156(3) 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 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. As such, this Court feels that the order dated 07.05.2018 in C.F.R.No.1280 of 2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram is apt to be quashed. 18. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The order must also express the motive behind the Magistrate’s decision to direct an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. As such, this Court feels that the order dated 07.05.2018 in C.F.R.No.1280 of 2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram is apt to be quashed. 18. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The order dated 07.05.2018 in C.F.R.No.1280 of 2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram and the consequentially registered FIR No.126 of 2018, dated 18.05.2018 in the Yerraguntla Police Station are quashed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.