ORDER : This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.313 of 2021 on the file of II Town Police Station, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2, the 1 st respondent herein is the defacto complainant. The 1 st respondent herein has filed a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) read with 200 Cr.P.C., on the file of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada stating that the petitioner No.2 is the wife of the 1 st petitioner. The 1 st respondent is working as police constable in Kakinada and the 1 st petitioner herein is ARSI in Armed Reserve Police, Kakinada and does real estate business. As a part of his business, the 1 st petitioner herein has offered to sell the property situated in Raydupalem village, Sy.No.84/4, plot No.13 to an extent of 149 square yards which stands in the name of the 2 nd petitioner herein. 3. Accordingly, the petitioners herein with fraudulent intention to cheat the 1 st respondent have offered to sell the said property by furnishing the Xerox copies of fake documents, believing which the 1 st respondent has paid Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cash and Rs.5,00,000/- by way of a cheque, which amount was availed as a loan from A.P. Police Housing Protection Scheme and thereafter a sale agreement dated 16.09.2014 was also executed by the 1 st respondent. Subsequently, the 1 st respondent came to know that the 2 nd petitioner is the GPA holder for accused No.3 and the said deed of GPA was executed on 27.03.2006 vide document NO.1635 of 2006 within SRO Samalkot, East Godavari District. The 1 st respondent further came to know that the accused No.3 has purchased the said property under registered document No.832/1980 within SRO Samalkot from one Malireddy Surya Chakaramma. 4. After due enquiries, the 1st respondent got to know that the deed of GPA dated 27.03.2006 which was registered vide document No.1635/2006 within SRO Samalkot, East Godavari District and the sale deed vide registered document No.832/1980 within SRO Samalkot as well as the sale agreement dated 16.09.2014 executed by the 2nd petitioner herein in favour of the 1st respondent herein are false and fabricated. All the accused, including the petitioners herein, with a fraudulent intention to cheat the 1st respondent and to gain wrongfully have inducted the 1st respondent to enter into an agreement by receiving a total amount of Rs.7,00,000/-. It is further stated in the complaint that the petitioners herein have conspired with other accused and intentionally fabricated document as that of an original document and have forged the signature of the Sub-Registrar. 5. It is further stated that the 1 st respondent made a complaint before the 2 nd respondent and on 10.09.2020 the said complaint was sent to the Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, as no action was initiated, the 1 st respondent has submitted the complaint before the III Additional Judicial First Class Masgistrate, Kakinada, wherein, the complaint was referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and the Police were directed to investigate into the matter vide order dated 17.09.2021. Hence, the police have registered a case against the accused in FIR No.313 of 2021 on the file of II Town Police Station, Kakinada, East Godavari District, challenging which the petitioners have filed the present petition requesting to quash the same as not maintainable. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the learned Judge has not applied his mind while passing the orders dated 17.09.2021 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 17.09.2021 passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be quashed and the consequent proceedings in F.I.R.No.313 of 2021 on the file of II Town Police Station, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the allegations leveled against the petitioners would constitute offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B, 463, 466, 468, 471 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 8. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the allegations leveled against the petitioners would constitute offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B, 463, 466, 468, 471 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 8. When the criminal petition came up for hearing on 26.11.2021, this Court has passed the following interim order: “…Meanwhile, the respondent police are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners with regard to FIR No.313 of 2021 of II Town Police Station, Kakinada, East Godavari District.” 9. 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 against the petitioners in F.I.R.No.313 of 2021 on the file of II Town Police Station, Kakinada, East Godavari District, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 10. 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. 11. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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 ] ” 13. 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. 14. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 15. It can be seen from the material available on record that the 1 st respondent herein has initially lodged a report in the II town Police, Kakinada with regard to the offences committed by the accused which was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police and other officers, but, as no action has been initiated, the 1 st respondent has submitted a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) read with 200 Cr.P.C. on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada wherein, the learned Magistrate vide orders dated 17.09.2021 has passed the following order: “The court examined the complaint on record and the allegations in the complaint are prima-facie disclosing cognizable offence and in view of the nature of offence, the investigation is required by the police to trace out the truth. In view of the above circumstances the complaint is refer to SHO of II Town L&O POLICE STATION, Kakinada u/Sec.156(3) of Crpc for investigation and directed to submit the report as per law. Call on 26.11.2021.” 16. For better understanding, the Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 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. 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.” 17. 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 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. In the order dated 17.09.2021 (extracted under paragraph 13), this Court finds no reasons for ordering such investigation. 18. Even in Ramdev Food Products Private Limited Vs. State of Gujarat , [ Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007 ], the Apex Court held that the direction underSection 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. 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 19. 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, [ 6 (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. 20. 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 17.09.2021 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada is apt to be quashed. 21. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed and the order dated 17.09.2021 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada and the consequential proceedings in FIR.No.313 of 2021 on the file of II Town Police Station, Kakinada, East Godavari District are hereby quashed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.