Hyderabad High Court · 2025

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 call for the records in connection with the SC/ST.SC.No. 83 of 2025 oo the file of the Special Sessions Judge For SCs/STs (POA) Act - Cum- Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District At LB Nagar, registered under sections 420,506 of IPC and Sec.3(2)(Va) of SC/ST POA AmendmentAct 2015, including cognizance order dtd.25.01.2025, and quash the same by allowing the above petition and to pass. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 2 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that ir the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition. he High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings, including I ppearance of the Petitioner/Accused in SC/ST.SC.No. 83 of 2025 on the ile of the Special Sessions Judge For SCs/STs (POA) Act - Cum- Vll Ac < itional District and Sessions Judge Rangareddy District At LB Nagar, pending cli ;posal of the above criminal petition, and to pass. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing .l e Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri MUMMANENI SRINIVASA RAO, Advocate for the Petitiont> and Sri Jrthender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalI of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2233 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner - accused seeking to quash the proceedings in SCiST SC No.83 of 2025 by the Special Sessions Judge for SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum-Vll Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, registered under Sections 420, 506 IPC & Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 20'1 5, including cognizance order dated

31.07.2025.

2. Heard Sri [Vlummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.'l - State.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cognizance orders are mechanically passed by the Special Sessions Judge for SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum-Vll Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, without mentioning any reason, and hence, prayed to quash the same 2 EfD,J Crl.P.No.2233 of 2O2S

4. The learned Additional public prosecutor hr Ls submitted that appropriate orders may be passed in this case, in rccorcrance with law, based on the allegations leveled in the charge s reet.

5. Perused the record.

6. The record discroses that the petitioner l-r rein is the sore accused in SC No.g3 of 2025. The allegations in :l e charge sheet point out that the petitioner and the comprainant arr working in the same College and that the accused hatched a plar lo enjoy her on the false promise of marrying her and took her to an i;olated place at Gandimaisamma road and forcefully enjoyed her ;exually. lt is further arreged that the petitioner continued the sairr act by treating her as his wife by stating that he is a divorcee anc rad a son and that he would marry her and whenever the complaire nt insisted him to marry her, he postponed the same on one pretext c r the other and therefore, the complainant brought the same to the notice of the College lVlanagement, but they did not respond to rer issue and threatened her and also removed her from service. -- ren she filed a complaint which was registered as Crime No..l 86 o ZO20 for the offences ..j$"r" Sections 376(2)(f) of IpC and t rereafter, the petitioner approached her and promised to marry he- by convincing his son and also get her job reinstated and that she , rgreed for the //// J ETD,J C .P.No.2233 of 2025 compromise. Thereafter, he continued the relationship with her and started physical harassment and forced her to fulfill his wild sexual desires. When she compelled him to marry her, he started abusing her in filthy language and in the name of caste. Hence, she filed a private complaint, which was referred to the Police, Bachupally. On completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet before the

7. The trial Court on receiving the charge sheet has taken it on file as S C.No.B3 ot 2025 for the offences under Sections 420,506 IPC & Section 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 against the accused and directed to issue summons

8. The office note is put up by the concerned Supervisor and the Special Sessions Judge has simply signed the said cognizance order without paying attention to the allegations made in the complaint and in the charge sheet. lt is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court ought to have assigned reasons that "prima facie the Court could make out the commission of offence and thus, the summons are issued" without which there would be violation of mandatory provision under Cr.P.C. Issuance of summons is not a mechanical course of action but it requires 4 ETD,J Crl.P.N0.2233 ol 2025 application of mind by the tt/agistrate to decide whe her there is any prima facie case against the accused for issuance cf summons.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the orders passed by the co-ordinate Benches of this I ourt in Criminal Revision Case No.816 of 2023 and Criminal peli on No.g136 of 2025 and the said petitions were allowed and the crt lnizance orders were quashed. '10. Learned counsel also relied upon a decis on of the Apex Court in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau cl lnvestigationl and Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal arrr I another2.

11. ln the above cited decisions, the Apex Cct rt has held that there should be proper application of mind by the cor rmittal Court for taking cognizance and also the Sessions Court has to assign reasons for taking cognizance of the offences. It is : >rtinent to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Kanti Bh;r lra Shah and another v. State of West Bengal3 and Bhushar Kumar and another v. State of NCT Delhia. w '(2015)4 scc 609 '(2008)'17 scc 157 'AtR 2ooo sc 522 '(20i2) s scc 424 5 ETD,J Crl.P.No.2233 of 2025 '12. ln Kanti Bhadra Shah's case (3 supra), it was held that "12. lf there is no legal requirement that the trial court should write an order showing the reasons for framing a charge, why should the already burdened tflal courts be further burdened with such an extra work. The time has reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the court procedures and to chalk out measures to avert all roadblocks causing avoidable delays. If a Magistrate is to write detailed orders at different stages merely because the counsel would address arguments at all stages, the snail-paced progress of proceedings in trial courts would further be slowed down. We are coming across interlocutory orders of Magistrates and Sessions Judges running into several pages. We can appreciate if such a detailed order has been passed for culminating the proceedings before them. But il is quite unnecessary to write detailed orders at other stages, such as issuing process, remanding the accused to custody, framing of charges, passtng over to next stages in the trial. lt is a salutary gurdeline that when orders relecting or granting bail are passed, the court should avoid expressing one way or the other on contentious issues, except in cases such as those falling within Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 1985."

13. ln Bhushan Kumar's case (4 supra), the "summoning order" passed by the tMagistrate was challenged in a quash petition and the High Court rejected it. Against the said rejection order, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court. lt was held in the said case that " 1 7. ln Chief Controller of lmports & Exports v. Roshanlal Agarwals [(2003) 4 SCC 1391 thrs Court, in para g, held as under "9. ln determining the question whether any process is to be rssued or not, what the l\,4agistrate has to be satisfied is whether there is sufficient ground for proceedtng and not 6 ETD,J Crl.P.No.2233 of 2025 whether there is sufficient ground for convictrl the evidence is adequate for supporting the co l be determined only at the kial and not at tf inquiry. At the stage of issurng the process to 1l- the l\4agistrate is not required to record rea question was considered recently in U.P. Control Board v. Mohan Meakins Ltd. [(201 745 and after noticing the law laid down in K I Shah v. State of W.B. [(2000) I SCC 722] t v, follows: r Whether 'iction, can ) stage of ) accused ;ons. This Pollution 0) 3 scc ti Bhadra as held as "6. The legislature has stressed i record reasons in certain situaticr dismissal of a complaint with ) process. There is no such legal r imposed on a Magistrate for passtr order while issuing summons. I l' issued to the accused cannot i)( merely, on the ground that the l\,4a l not passed a speaking order " 3 need to ; such as t issu ing qurrement g detarled : process q uashed strate had

14. After an elaborate discussion on the su rject. the Apex Court has dismissed the appeals arising out of re ( ction of quash petition and held that the concerned lVlagistrate is 1-ee to proceed further in accordance with law. Thus, a detailed ord(l is not required while taking cognizance.

15. ln the present case, the allegations point o rt to an offence under Section 376(2)(f) lPC, but cognizance is nc t taken of the same. lt is borne out by record that on filing the cha-,te sheet by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, office note was put up with regard ..'3;tarx&&*iar, 7 ETO,J Cd.P.No.2233 o12025 to the details of the case and based on the office note, the cognizance was taken by the Court of Special Sessions Judge for SCs/STs (POA) Act cum Vll Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reedy District at L.B. Nagar for the offences under Sections 420, 506lPC & Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 20'1 5 against the accused.

16. lt is pertinent to note that the FIR is registered for the offences under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 3(w) of the SC & ST POA Act and the charge sheet was filed for the offences under Sections 420, 506 IPC & Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 while the recitals of charge sheet point out the offence mainly under Section 376(2)(f) lPC. While passing the cognizance order the trial courts ought to have examined the nature of allegations against the accused while taking cognizance. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial court failed to record reasons for taking cognizance, this Court expresses I its concern over ignoring the primary allegations made in the complaint and the charge sheet

17. This Court does not want to interfere into the powers of the Sessions Court in taking cognizance of the offences, but there is 8 EfD,J Cd.P.No.2233 of 2025 a glaring error in taking cognizance. Therefore, the : tgnizance order is liable to be set aside '1 8. ln the result, the Criminal Petition ir; allowed. The cognizance order dated 25.01 .2025 passed in SCi{ T SC No 83 of 2025 by the Special Sessions Judge for SCs/STs (F,, )A) Act cum Vlt Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reedy District at L.B. Nagar, is hereby set aside and the matter is rr: nanded with a direction to the trial court to pass a reasoned orde in accordance with law. [Vliscellaneous applications pending, if any, sh a I stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- HUSSAIN ALI ASSI ;TANT REGISTRAR @ SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Special Sessions Judge For SCs/STs (pOA) Act )um- Vlt Additionat District and Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District At L: Nagar. The Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Bach rpally, Cyberabad. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at - yderabad. (OUT) One CC to SRI MUMMANENT SRINTVASA RAO Advor;i te tOpUCl One CC to SRI LEGAL AID Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 2 ,) 4 5 T PK/Sa w HIGH COURT DATED:0411112025 ORDER GRLP.No.2233 of 2025 C / i : 0,t ili 2925 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWIEiD { ,-{li ?(