Syed lfthekar v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused No1 and 2 in CC No. 9536 of 2021 on the file of the Xlll Additionat Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally. Hyderabad l.A. NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings, including the appearance of the petitioners/accused Nol and 2 in CC No. 9536 of 2021 on the file of the Xlll ADDL. Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally. Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri D.Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following: ORDER R AT HYDERABAD TT]:E HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.2553 of 2026 Date:24.02.2026 Between: Syed Ifthekar and another ...petitioners/accused Nos. | & 2 AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Clourt for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad and an, rther respondents ORDER 'fhis Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.l & 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.9536 of 2021 pending on the file of the XIII Additional chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under liections 498-4 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short '[PC') and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (lbr short 'DP Act').

#2. I'lo representation on behalf o1'the petitioners either through physiczrl mode or virtual mode. Heard Sri Jithendar Rao 2' Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.l.

#3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the matter before the learned Trial Court has not riped for the trial yet and is at the stage of issuance of summons. In view of the same, notice in respect of respondent No.2ldefacto complainant is dispensed with.

#4. Upon perusal of record, it reveals that the leamed Magistrate without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons has taken cognizance on 08.12.202[ and issued summons to the petitioners and the same is contrary to the principle laid down in Sunit Bharati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigationt.

#5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor requested this Court to pass appropriate orders.

#6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on 08.12.2021 without applying his mind and without assigning any reasons, especially ' lzors;4 scc 609 \ \ 3 taken rlognizance against the accused and not against the offences through cognizance order passed in C.C.No.9536 of 2021

#7. [t is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittal supra the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order of issuingl process to accused to face criminal trial is a serious issue. Such summoning cannot be done on mere asking and the Court has to record reasons for summoning a person. ln GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Limirct, the Hon'ble Apex Court found fault with the order of the Magistrate in issuing summ()ns when the Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction about the prima facie case against the accused. In Chief Enfor,:emnet Offcer v. Videocon International Limitei, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the expression 'cognizance' held that in criminal law 'cognizance' means becoming aware of and the word used with respect to Court or a Judge initiating proceedings in respect of an offence. Taking cogniz; ance would involve application of mind by the Magistrate to -the suspected commission of an offence. The Hon'ble Supreme 2 1zott1 { scc so5 lzoos; z scc 492 3 4 court in sunil Bharati Mittal's case (supra), further held as follows: "Sine Qua Nonfor taking cognizance of the offence is- the-appli.cation of minT by the MagX;ia7e oid lrtt satifactio,n that the allegations, if prirua, ioutd conititute an offence' It k, therefore' imperative that on a complaint or on a ptolice riport, the Magistrate is bound to consider the question as to whethei the same discloses commission of an i6"i"" and is required to form such an opinion in this respect' When -ii" dou, so and dicides to"issue process, he shall be said to have taken ,o[nilorru. At the srage of rakinq :og!i:!:"e' the only consideration whether the ma.terial before the Court ,u*o'in, io on tuhich the prosecution proposes to prosecute the accused brings out a Primafacie case or not"' "onid"iudiciously 8 [nFakhructctinAhmadv. Stateof(Jtturanchaland another{, it is held as follows: ,,Neverthele.ss, i/ rs well settled that before a Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offence' it is imperative that he must have taken notii of the aicusations and applied his mind to ii, oti"laions made in thi complaint or in the police report or the 'irt r*iri", receivedfto* o,oui" other than a police report' as the "r;;; ;;y be, and- the mdterial filert therewith. It needs little ent1thusis that it is only vvhen the Magistrate applies his mind ald k ,r"iiriri rnrt the allegations, if provid,.would constitute an offence ancl clecides to initia; prorrriiigt agatnst the alleged offender' that -i ,oo, be positively itoted nat hi has taken cognizance of the offence. Cognizance is in regard to the offence and not the oJfender. " In view of the observations and directions of the Hon'ble g. Supreme Court in the judgments refeffed to supra' the act of issuing process of summoning the accused to face criminal trial is a serious issue and such orders directing summons to a person to face criminal trial cannot be on the basis of cryptic orders and it should o lzoot; 17 scc ls7 \ \ t 5 be ar: order reflecting application of mind by the presiding officer 1 I while' taking cognizance and issuing process.

#10. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid down by thre Hon'ble Apex court in the judgments cited supra, and, withc, ut going into the other grounds, this court is of the consi, cered view that cognizance order passed in c.c.No.9536 of 2021 pending on the file of the XIII Additional chief Judicial Magir; trate at Nampally, Hyderabad, is liable to be quashed and accor, Jingly quashed. However, this order will not preclude the learned Magistrate from taking cognizance and passing orders afresL. in accordance with law, by giving reasons. 1 l. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if doy, shall stand closecl. SD/- C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER I I To,

#1. The Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station 3. One CC to Sri D.S atyanara 4. Two CCs to Public r Prosecu Hyderabad (our) at Na rmpally, Hyderabad CCs, DD, H yderabad City yana ,Advocate (OPUC) tor, High Court for the State of Telangana at

#5. Two CD Copies Ks/PS '-"'- ,;IATE 0 3 i{fffr 2026 i:; i () () HIGH COIJRT DATED 12410212026 ORDER CRLP.No.2553 of 2026 Disposing of the Crl.P.