ORDER: V.SUJATHA, J. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.515 of 2021, dated 31.08.2021 on the file of Station House Officer, Bhimavaram I Town Police Station, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 153-A and 505(2) read with 34 IPC. 2. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2 and the 2 nd respondent is the defacto complainant. 3. The brief facts of the complaint filed by the defacto complainant/2 nd respondent are that on 31.08.2021, the 1 st petitioner/accused No.1 raised a flexi displaying the local MLA's picture without obtaining any permission. It is alleged that by doing so, the 1 st petitioner showed disrespect to the YSR Congress party and local MLA and promoted enmity and created disharmony among the public. It is further alleged that previously also, the 1 st petitioner encouraged Janasena party activities to attack on Dalit community people in Matsyapuri village. It is further alleged that the 2 nd petitioner, who is the Editor of "Vasista Today? evening daily newspaper, has published news about raising of the said flexi in the said newspaper, and thereby supported the activities of the 1 st petitioner in disturbing the public tranquillity. Basing on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Bhimavaram registered a case vide FIR No.515 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Section 153-A and 505(2) read with 34 IPC. 4. While ordering notice before admission on 25.11.2021, this Court passed the following interim order: “…..there shall be stay of all further proceedings in FIR No.515/2021 on the file of the Station House Officer, Bhimavaram I Town Police Station, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present case is foisted against the petitioners only to harass them and to have an unlawful gain. The flexi said to have been raised by the 1 st petitioner was in the manner of requesting the local MLA to kindly look into the problems of the public by specifically citing two issues i.e., regarding construction of a water tank near daily market and regarding the maintenance of roads. It is neither a political representation nor contains any political derogatory speech that would create any incitement or hatred against any individual or group. It is neither a political representation nor contains any political derogatory speech that would create any incitement or hatred against any individual or group. It is further stated that the 1 st petitioner has nothing to do with the earlier incident said to have occurred at Matsyapuri and he is not involved in any such case. It is further submitted that in the news item published by the 2 nd petitioner also, no derogatory remarks were made against Local MLA or any other politician or political party and it only speaks about raising of flexi by the 1 st petitioner. It is, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent contended that the alleged acts of the petitioners are sufficient to conclude that the petitioners committed offence punishable under Sections 153-A and 505(2) read with 34 IPC and therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor for the 1 st respondent concurs with the submission of the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent. 7. 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 petitioner s in Crime No.515 of 2021 of Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District 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. 8. 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. 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. 9. Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was 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. 10. 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. 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 ] ” 11. In “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] ” the Apex Court considered in detail the powers of High Court underSection 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. (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. (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. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 12. The offences alleged in the present case are under Sections 153-A and 505(2) I.P.C. Section 153A I.P.C. reads as under: “ Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. 12. The offences alleged in the present case are under Sections 153-A and 505(2) I.P.C. Section 153A I.P.C. reads as under: “ Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. (1) Whoever— (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or (b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, or (c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Offence committed in place of worship, etc.— (2) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.” Section 505(2) I.P.C. reads as under: “ Statements conducing to public mischief. (1) xxxx (2) Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes.— Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different reli-gious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” 13. Now, it is to be examined whether the aforesaid offences would attract in the present case, on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint and prima facie material, if any, available on record. 14. The allegation against the 1 st petitioner is that he has raised a flexi with the picture of local MLA, promoting enmity and creating disharmony among the public and the allegation against the 2 nd petitioner is that he, being the editor of "Vasista Today? newspaper, has published news about the said flexi in the said newspaper and thereby, supported the activities of the 1 st petitioner. 15. From a perusal of the copy of the flexi, which is filed in the material papers, it is evident that it was captioned as a "request? and contains the picture of local MLA. The contents of the flexi would show that the 1 st petitioner raised concern regarding the delay in the developmental activities proposed in Bhimavaram, particularly, with regard to construction of water tank and laying of public roads. It was mentioned that after laying of foundation stone, only 10% of the works were completed and a request was made to the Local MLA to focus on the developmental activities in Bhimavaram. Except the same, no other words insulting the local MLA or promoting disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, could be found in the said flexi. The contents of the flexi being only in the nature of a request with regard to the developmental activities and not containing any controversial statements, raising of the said flexi cannot be said to be an act creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes. The contents of the flexi being only in the nature of a request with regard to the developmental activities and not containing any controversial statements, raising of the said flexi cannot be said to be an act creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes. Even in the news item published by the 2 nd petitioner in the newspaper, there is no such statement that would create disharmony or hatred among public nor does it contain any derogatory remarks about the local MLA. It only speaks about raising of flexi by the 1 st petitioner, inviting the attention of public, and states that the response of ruling party is awaited. 16. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the considered opinion that the offences under Sections 153-A and 505(2) I.P.C. are not attracted against the petitioners and continuing the proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law. 17. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.515 of 2021 on the file of Station House Officer, Bhimavaram I Town Police Station, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, are hereby quashed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.