The High Court · 2025

^O^rylliqq, 2311221.10. Plot No./'l0, NTR Colony, Hyderabad 500087. Akhil, S/o. K. Srinivasulu, aged Major, Occ- private Service, Rt/o. H. No. 10-3_ 77111 Plot No.12514, Teadhers Colony, East Marredpaliy, SecundiraOad 500026. . Rebecca ^K9lV_q1i, _W/o. Duraikannu Robert, Aged major, Occ- Clerk, D K. Rr/o. H. No. 1-38-997/4, Rasootpura, tndiramma f\laga[ HyderibiO SOOOOS. T. Ravinder, S/o. Danaiah, Aged major, Occ- Teacher Rlo 16-72l2Ol.lOOt4l2, :gltggfllqqer, Near New Masjid, Bataji Nagar, Shamirpet, Ranga Reddli District 500087. PS- Lydia.Priyadarshini, Aged major, Occ- Correspondent, Rl/o H.No.2.l-13/1, [\4alkaram Near CSI Church, Shamirpet, 500087 ...Petitioner/Accused 2 to 9 AND

1. The State of Telangana and 2 others, throuqh the p.S. Jawaharnaoar. Ranoa Reddy. Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, HyderJbad.

2. Y.A. Suzan Paul, W/o. S.C. Das Paul, aged major, Occ- Teacher, 3 9.C. Das Paul, S/o. Late Sundar Raj, aged about 39 Occ- private Service, Both respondent No.2 and 3 ard R7o H. No.23-18/1 1. Shantinaoar. pgl4rgtgar, Shamirpet Mandat, Jawaharnagar, - Ranga Reddy distiict, 500087 Petition under Section 482 ot Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may ...Respondent be pleased to Quash the proceedings of cc.No.1 332t201g on the fire of the court of the 23rd Metroporitan Magistrate at cyberabad Medchar.R.R.District. t.A. NO: 'l oF 2024 Petition under Seclion 482 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to extend the stay orders granted on extend the interim orders passed on 1Ol3t20ZO in Crt.p.No.1687l2O2O. I.A. N :3O F 2020 Between:

2. Y.A. Suzan Paul, W/o. S.C. Das paul, aged major, 0cc- Teacher, S.C. Das Paul, S/o. Lat Both respondent No.2 Balajinagar, Shamiroet 500087 Raj, aged.about 39 Occ- private Service, are R/o H. No.23-18/1 i Jawaharnagar, - Ransa ;,"i!i"t?3fl3[: e Sundar and 3 Mandal, AND ......PETIrIONERS/ RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 1 2 J

4. 5 6 8 -Niir- . 33 years It/utyalapalem. Shravani, Wlo. Nave p,.iuaie'servic"e, il::="ff. "nl::tt'?B]'J_uudn" , alingapuram, Neltore - szaoor, nnoni, d;Ju"J:' 41 years Occ- Mrs. Occ. Ram Mr Srinivas Konne, S/o. Konne, Pvt. Service, lvo. Jawaharnagar, Hyderabad. Lourd Mary, Wlo. Harrv Rorraldd 49 years Occ- feacher, R/o 5_g_ 5 4 I 7 1 t 1 1 . B a sheerba gh,'pot ea gh, r.ta-m'orii, ri"rl;;rlrd 5ooo0 1 . D Ambica, W/o Padmarai,.Age.{ about 32 years, Occ_ Teacher, R/o. C6i#|, -nio"orar H.No. 1 8-23/ 12211 0. ptot' NoI/10, Trimulgherry.Hydeiabad500087.' " ""'-"'''rr Akhil, S/o. K. SrinivasLrtrr .qged JMajor, Occ- private Service, R/o. H. e nr ro. i zs7+,- i;;h'; "b"io nvl''er.t Ma rredpa rry, UB.rl: D.K. Rebecca Kalvani. W/o. ^D_uraikannu Robert, Aged major, Occ_ 31,*; #,i..Boorio I -sa-ss zal'Ei J.i" rpi,i", " r I'ii ;;.#- x;#, T. Ravinder, S/o. Danaiah, Age.d major, Occ_ Teacher RIo 16_ 721201100t4t2. Santosh N"ggr," Near-Ne*-irt"asird, Balaji Nagar, Shamirpet, Ranga Reddy Distiict 50b-0s7. P.S. Lydia Privadarshini Aqu!. lrrior, Occ- Correspondent, Ryo H. No. 2' - 1 3/ 1, M'a I ka ra m r.rea r-c Sr c il;h, s-nl"ririJi I soooa z rvi' '|"qe'|u "r#l,u r..rasrr, ...Respondents 1 to g/ petitioners

9. The State of Telangana, through the P.S. Jawaharnagar, Ranga Reddy. Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. ...Respondent No.9/ Respondent No.3/ Respondents 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 vacate the interim order dated 2010312020 granted in Crl.p.No. '1687 Of 2020 and dismiss the criminal petition No. 1687 of 2020 with costs. r.A. NO: F 020 Petition under Section 482 o'f 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 all further proceedings on the file CC.No.133212019 on the file of the Court of the 23 Metropolitan Magistrate at Cyberabad Medcha l.R. R. District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri J C Francis, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.. and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.1587 OF 2O2O ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quaSh the proceedings against them in C.C.No. 1332 of 2OL9, on the file of XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate at cyberabad, Medchar, R.R.District. They were summoned for the offences under sections 42O,424,463, 384, 506, and 120 ofIpC.

2. Heard the leaned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.vivekana,da Reddy, rearned Assistant public prosecutor for respondent-State.

3. The only ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the Court below has mechanically taken cognizance on a printed format and issued summons. Such issuance of summons, without giving any reasons is bad in view of the judgment of this Court in Alda D,souza vs. State of Telanaga and Othersr.

4. This Cour:t, in Alda D,souza,s case, held as under: '11. Issuance of process in criminal trial is a serious issue. Unless th e criminal Court finds adequate grounds and reasons to summon the witness, the same carnot be done. | 2023 Lawsuit (TS) 581 2 In the present case no protest application was filed by the de facto complainant questioning the deletion of the names of these petitioners, when charge sheet was filed. As seen from the endorsement of the learned Magistrate it was ordered to issue surrunons to accused No.1 to accused No.5 without there being any other order or reasons for issuance of summons to these petitioners against whom proceedings were dropped. It appears that the Magistrate without 6 even looking into the charge sheet, mechanically directed issuance of summons. 12. Several quash petitions are being filed before this Court questioning the very cognizance order taken by the learned Magistrates or the Special Courts. The cognizaace ord.ers are bereft of any reasons ald bald assertions are made for taking cognizalce; to illustrate, i) In some of the orders it is mentioned as "having gone through the statements and other material, the court is satislied to take cogtrizance" and accordingly summons are issued; ii) In the present case, it is endorsed by the Magistrate as "the complaint is taken on file against the accused for offences punishable lJ /s...."; iii) Instead of writing a CognLance order, stamps are made and stamped on the Charge sheet/complaint and Blanks are filled about the cognizance being taken under the penal provisions and the next date of hearing is also frlled up and summons are sent to the accused; iv) In some of the cases in the remand report, police have prepared the notes of the Magistrate and the Magistrate has frlled up the offences, date and signs the remand order.

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2015 4 SCC 609 case held that the order of issuing 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. In GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Limited, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found fault with the order of the Magistrate in issuing summons when the Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction about the prima facie case against the accused. In Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Limited, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the expression tognizance' 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 cognizalce would involve application of mind by the Magistrate to the suspected commission of an offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharati Mittal's case (supra), further held as follows: "Sine Qua Non for taking cognizance of the offence is the application of mind by the Magistrate and his satisfaction that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence. It is, therefore, imperative that on a complaint or on a police report, the Magistrate is bound to consider the question as to whether the same discloses commission of al offence and is required to form such an opinion in this respect. When he does so and decides to issue process, he shall be said to have taken cognizance. At the stage of taking cognizance, the only consideration before the Court remains to consider judiciously whether the t I 4 material on which the prosecution proposes to prosecute the accused brings out a prima facie case or not.'

5. Since the summons were issued mechanically on a printed format, which crearly indicates that the Magistrate has not gone into the charge sheet or documents filed along with charge sheet, before taking cognizance to appry his mind, the order of Magistrate taking cognizance is hereby set aside' However' this order will not preclude the Magistrate from taking cogrlizance against these petitioners' by following the directions of this Court in Alda D'souza's case (supra)' This Court has not dxpressed any view on the complicity or otherwise of the petitioners'

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition Miscellaneous aPPlications Pending' if any, shall stand closed' 1S 'disposed off' SD, UTY . K. AMMAJI REGISTRAR DEP //TRUE COPY/I SECTTON OFFICER To, I a Medchal Jawaharnagar Pol ice Station, Advocate tOPUCI

1. The XXlll MetroPolitan Magistrate' CYberabad 2. The Station House Officer' 3. One CC to Sri' J C Francts 4. Two CCs to Pub 5. Two CD CoPies' lic Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana touTl. Rachakonda- YIR /PSL w \ I I HIGH COURT DATED:0510312025 oR, I J i) (j ,) \ 12luN 2w )'t i-r ORDER CRLP.No.1687 of 2020 os. f ClrfjO .l DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION. I CIi1€A &-