ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. These two appeals arise from a common order dated 04.01.2024 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No.7415 of 2019. 4. A first information report (for short FIR) was lodged by Sabavath Neelavathy (i.e., appellant in the main appeal). After investigation, the police submitted a closure report concluding therein that inter se parties a civil litigation is pending in court and allegations are not substantiated. Aggrieved by the same, Sabavath Neelavathy filed a protest petition. The protest petition was taken up as a complaint and, after following the complaint case procedure, on 13.12.2017, the learned magistrate passed the following order: “Considering the complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C and the statements of LWs.1 to 4 recorded before this Court, this Court came to conclusion that a prima facie has been made out for the offences U/Sec. 420, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(iv)(v)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. The caste certificates of complaint and accused were filed by the police along with final report in Cr.No.219 of 2015 of P.S. Yacharam. Upon perusal of the above documents cognizance has been taken against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences U/Sec. 420, 506 of IPC and Sec. 3(1)(iv)(v)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. Issue summons to accused. Call on 18.01.2018 for their appearance. The complainant is directed to furnish the documents i.e., complaint and other documents to the accused”. 5. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2017 Criminal Petition No.7415 of 2019 was filed by the accused who were summoned thereunder. 6. The High Court found the summoning order to be a non-speaking order, not reflecting application of mind, and, consequently, set aside the said order. While setting aside the said order, the High Court observed that its order will not preclude the learned Magistrate from taking cognizance by giving reasons. 7. The complainant as well as the accused are both aggrieved by the High Court’s order and have separately challenged the same. The complainant’s case is that the order passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be termed a non-speaking order rather it sufficiently complies with the requirement of law therefore there was no justification for the High Court to quash the same on ground of it being a non-speaking order. 8. The complainant’s case is that the order passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be termed a non-speaking order rather it sufficiently complies with the requirement of law therefore there was no justification for the High Court to quash the same on ground of it being a non-speaking order. 8. The accused party has challenged the said order on the ground that quashing of the complaint was sought inter alia on the ground that it did not disclose commission of any offence and the proven facts indicated that it was mala fide made with a view to spite the accused who were in civil litigation with the complainant and, therefore, when, after investigation, the police had submitted a closure report, the continuance of the proceedings would amount to the abuse of the process of the court. 9. It is alleged in the complaint that on 15.09.2015 while the complainant along with her husband were working in their agricultural fields, the accused along with five unknown persons came and told the complainant that they had purchased a portion of the land in the above survey numbers; when the complainant informed them that she has already instituted a suit for partition against her husband and his brothers before the civil court, which is pending, the accused abused the complainant and her husband by using filthy language. 10. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that accused have been implicated with a mala fide intention by taking aid of the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC & ST Act, 1989) apart from Sections 420 and 506 IPC. It is contended that there is nothing in the complaint to indicate that the accused had abused the complainant party being aware of their caste and with an intent to humiliate them. It has also been submitted that in the civil litigation the sale deed executed in favour of the accused by the husband of the complainant is under challenge. The suit is pending, and the validity of sale deed would be tested there. However, the ingredients of an offence of cheating are not made out. Insofar as the offence of Section 506 IPC is concerned, the same has been added to give color to a pure civil dispute. The suit is pending, and the validity of sale deed would be tested there. However, the ingredients of an offence of cheating are not made out. Insofar as the offence of Section 506 IPC is concerned, the same has been added to give color to a pure civil dispute. It has also been contended that complaint has no support from any medical examination report and, therefore, the investigating agency concluded that it was a bogus complaint. In such circumstances, it is prayed that complaint and the proceedings ought to have been quashed by the High Court. 11. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that correctness of allegations is to be tested in trial. Insofar as the summoning order is concerned, it cannot be termed a non-speaking order, as the order reflects that the learned Magistrate had perused the complaint and the statement of the witnesses and thereafter it found to be a fit case for proceeding further in the matter. Such reasons are good enough to sustain the summoning order. He further submits that since parties are already known to each other as sale deed has been executed by the husband of the complainant in favour of the accused party, even if it is not stated in the complaint that the accused were aware of the caste of the complainant, the necessary ingredients of an offence punishable under the provisions of the SC & ST Act, 1989 are fulfilled to sustain the summoning order. 12. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the materials on record including the complaint. In our view, this is a case where the proceedings ought to have been nipped in the bud by the High Court, particularly when the High Court was made aware of the fact that the matter was thoroughly investigated and the investigating agency found no substance in the complaint and, admittedly, parties were in a civil litigation with each other qua sale deed executed by complainant’s husband. The complaint allegations indicate that accused party arrived in the fields and disclosed to the complainant as well as her husband that property was purchased by them; in such circumstances, when sale deed is yet to be declared void a claim set up on basis thereof would not per se constitute an offence. The complaint allegations indicate that accused party arrived in the fields and disclosed to the complainant as well as her husband that property was purchased by them; in such circumstances, when sale deed is yet to be declared void a claim set up on basis thereof would not per se constitute an offence. As far as use of filthy language is concerned, there is no allegation in the complaint that such filthy language was used with a view to humiliate the complainant and with an understanding that the complainant is a member of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. 13. In matters where civil proceedings are pending inter se the parties, the Court should be circumspect in accepting the allegations, and where prima facie offence is not made out, or it appears proceedings have been initiated to spite the accused or to harass him, with a view to coerce him into a compromise, the High Court must not hesitate in invoking inherent powers, particularly, when there is no independent corroborative material to lend credence to the prosecution story. Here, admittedly, there is no injury report to lend credence to any such incidence as alleged and there are civil proceedings pending inter se the parties. In such circumstances, the High Court should not have hesitated in putting a quietus to the frivolous complaint, particularly when the investigating agency did not find any merit in the allegations made therein. 14. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the accused party deserves to be allowed and is, accordingly allowed; whereas the appeal filed by the complainant party is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The order passed by the High Court to the extent it permits the learned Magistrate to pass a fresh cognizance order, is hereby set aside. The complaint proceedings impugned before the High Court shall stand quashed. 15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.