Between V.V. Satyanarayana, S/o v. Ramarao, aged

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the fv Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Jt Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and. the ltflr. M. Vivek Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Mr. P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. lemorandum of /lr. Mummaneni ananda Reddy, No.1 and of The Court made the following: ORDER THE] HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO AL No. ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitionr:r/accused, seeking to quash the proceedings in c.c.No,647l of 2022 0n the file of the II Additional civil Judge-c,um-Xll Additional Judicial Magistrate of first class Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, for the offences punisha:le under Sections 420, 339 , 403, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'lPC').

2. Heard Mr.Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr.P.Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2. aJ Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that learned Magistrate had taken cognizance against the petitioner and issued summons mechanically even without applicat:ion of mind and passed cryptic docket order dated

21.05.2015. He further submitted that the learned Magistrate ought to have taken cognizance against the offence only but not 2 against accused. Therefore, the docket order dated 2 05 .20 15 I passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashment of the pro""{dings on the grounds raised in the present criminal petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. Having considered the rival submissions madg by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the learned Magistrate h4r taken cognizance without applying his mind and without assigflring any reasons, especially taken cognizance against the accuse{ and not l against the offences through docket order dated 21.05 5

6. It is very much relevant to mention that in Sz Bharati Mittsl v. Central Bureau of Investigationr the Hon'ble $upr".n. Court held that the order of issuing process to accuse{ to face I 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 Optiqn Trust ' 1zors14 scc 609 '.--- -- +.-.+:.:.--- 3 v. India rnfoline Limilef, the Hon'ble Apex court found fault with ttLe order of the Magistrate in issuing summons when the Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction about the prima facie case a,gainst the accused. In chief Enforc:emnet ofticer v. videoc'on International Limitef , the Hon'ble Supreme court while discussing. the expression 'cognizance, held that in criminal law 'cognizance' means becoming aware of and the word usred with respect to court or a Judge initiating proceedings in respect of an offence. Taking cognizance would involve application of mind by the Magistrate to the suspected commission of an offence. The Hon'ble Supreme court in sanil Bhorati Mittal's case (Supra), further held as follows: "sine Qua Non for taking cognizance of the offence is the apprication of min/ by the Magistrate and his satisfactioi that the alrigations, if proved, would con.vtitute an offence. It is, therefore, imperati-ve that on a complaint or on a police report, the Magistrate is biuncl to consider the question as to whether the same iiscloses commission of an offence and is required to form such an opinion in this respect.,l4'hen he coes so and decides to issue process, he shall be saicl to have taken cogruizance. At the stage of taking cognizance, the only consideration beJtre the court retmains to consider judiciously whet'her the material on which the prosecution proposes to prosecute the accused brings out a primafacie case or not." ' 1zott14 sc:c 505 lzooa; z sc:c 4gz 3 4

7. In Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaruncftal and another4, it is held as follows: information receivedfrom a source other than a police report, at case may be, and the material filed therewith. It needs I emphasis that tt is only when the Magistrate applies his mind an satisfied that the allegations, i,f proved, would constitute an ofi and decides to initiate proceedings against the alleged offender, it can be positively stated that he has taken cognizance of offence. Cognizance is in regard to the offence and not offender. i the ld it I the

8. In view of the observations and directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to supra, the act of issuing process of summoning the accused to face crim[nal trial is a serious issue and such orders directing summons to a person to face criminal trial cannot be on the basis of cryptic it should be an order reflecting application of by the Presiding Officer while taking cognizance and issuing S g. For the foregoing reasons as well as the princifles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments citEd supra, and without going into the other grounds, this Court of the Js considered view that docket order dated 21.,05.2015 passed by n lzoos; 17 scc 157 5 the C.c.I{o.6471 of 2022 on the file of the rI Additionat civil Judge-cum-Xll Additional Judicial Magistrate of first class Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, is liable to be quashed zrnd accordingly quashed. However, this order will not preclude the learned Magistrate from taking cognizance and passing orders afresh in accordance with law, by giving reasons.

10. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. Pen,ling miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/. C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Note: This order i:;-amended as per Court order dated_ st-,tz_ziis]iiu"" in ra No.1 of Z02S in criminil'FIIiion r.ro. 2237 of 2021 The C.C.no. and-Court name mentioned in order date,d JJ - t t _ioiii' iicrimina I petition No.2,,231 ot zoii1llc.c. No.esz 9! zotS, and 9_"r+ nirn" ii Rooitionar Metropotita n Ma g^istrii. (, fr tpailty,, is {;fi[i: *: ],i? i]iii,ijJl :"1rr s;]x J udse-c um _).,t Addit6;;fi;; i;i, I lvl, g i"tr"t" of First Ctass,Meachaiithrr[iigi.i District at [if:trlY ! where;;;;iis ;';cessary. rnrs order S,rrbstitutes the .r.li", *i"l. which was di:;patctreo on t dll_ZOzs. lssue Amended ordei accorOinjly- ' Note:Total amount of Rs.1,000 (Rupees one thousand only) has been paid by Sri. Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, counsel for the Petitioner as directed by the Hon'ble Court order dated 31-02'2025 in lA.No.1 of 2025 in Criminal Petition No.2237 of 2021 as Rs.1,000/- (One thousand only) to the Telangana High Court Legal Services Autholity and filed memo as proof of Compliance USR No.762 of 2026 and Receipt dated 31 -12-2025 //TRUE COPY/ sd/ ANT - C.DE REG ASSIST R EC ON OFFICER \ To,

1. The il Additional Junior civil Judge-cum-Xlll Additional of First class,Medchal [Vlalkajgiri District at Kukaktpally: 2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, State of Telangana, High dicial Magistrate Buildings, at Hyderabad (OUT)

3. One CC to Sri. Nlummaneni srinivasa Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Mr. P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies DLPSL / I, I I I i l i i t r' I A I S # I ?X JIN 2$t$ $) , I HIGH COURT DATED:1111 1t2025 31-12-"2A25 I\ \o AMENDED ORI)ER CRLP.No,2237 of 2021 CRIMINAL PETI-TON IS DISPOSED OF