Mittat v. Central Bureau of Investigationt the Hon'ble Supreme

fetition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\i'lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in connection with the case in CC.No -975 of 2023, on the file of the ll Additional Junior Civil Judge - cum- Vlll Additional Judicial Maglstrate of First Class, Ivledchal t\/alkajgiri Distrrct at Kukatpally, and quash the same by allowing the above petition. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt/lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioner/ Accused in CC.No.975 of 2023, on the file of the ll Additional Junior Civil Judge - cum- Xlll Additional Judicial lvlagistrate of First Class, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, pending disposal of the above criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the l/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri IMUI\4IMANENl SRINIVASA RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri lvl.Vivekananda Reddy, the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Sri P.Vamsheedhar Reddy for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER i I I i ! I I I I I I i THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREE\' VAS RAO CRIMINAL PETTTION No.2219 ol 1027 ORDER This Criminal Petition has been f I :d by the petitioner/accused, seeking to quash the pri ceedings C.C.No.975 of 2023 on the file of the tI Addit onal Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIII Additional Judicial Magiri rate of First Class Medchat Malkajgiri District, at Kukat:llly, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406,464. +6g, 4ll arrd, 380 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ,lpC '

2. Heard Mr.Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, leamc L counsel for petitioner, Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Ass stant public Prosecutor appearing for respondent rro. 1 Mr.P.Vamshoedhar Reddy, leamed counsel for respr ndent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemen ly contended that learned Magistrate had taken cognizanoe against the petitioner and issued summons mechanically e , en without application of mind and passed cryptic docket rrder dated

13.06.2017.I1e fuither submitted that the leame: Magistrate 2 ought to have taken cognizance against the offence only but not against accused. Therefore, the docket order dated 13'06'2011 passecl by the teamed Magistrate is liabte to be quashed'

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

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parlies and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the leamed Magistrate has taken cognizance witl.rout applying his mind and without assigning any reasons, especially taken cognizance against the accused and not against the offences through docket order dated 13'06'2011 ' which reads as under: "C.C.No.2333 of 2t)17 taken on lile under Section's 420' 406' 464' 468, 471 antt 380 of Lhe IPC againsl the accused' Issue summons by call on 2 5.09.2017 ". It is very much relevant to mention that n Sunil Bharati

6. Mittat v. Central Bureau of Investigationt the Hon'ble Supreme ' (zots) a scc oos i I i I I I I I t Ii I i I I I ! I i .1 3 Courl held lhat the order of issuing process to ar; :used to face criminal trial is a serious issue. Such summoning ci nnot be done on mere a:;kir.rg and the Courl has to recor<l rcasons for sumrnoning a person. In GHCL Employees Stock 2ption Trust v. India InJitline Limircd, the Hon'ble Apex Corr 1 lound fault rvith the order of the Magistrate in issuing sumnr )ns when the Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction about tle prima facie case againsl the accused. In Chief Enforcemtt't Officer Videocon International Limited', the Hon'ble St prerne Couft while discu ssing the expression 'cognizance' reld that in criminal lavr 'cognizance' means becoming aw'at: of and the word used rvith respect to Court or a Judge initiatirr lproceedings in respect of an offence. Taking cognizance rr :ruld involve application of mind by the Magistrate to - re suspected commission of an offence. The Hon'ble Supreme ( ourt in Saail Bhurati Mittal's case (Supra), further held as follt,'vs "Sine Qua Non for taking cognizance of the offence is !he t oplicalion of mind b1, the Magistrdte and his satisfaction thal the tltr gations, i.f proved, wrtuld constitute an ofence. lt is, therefore, imper(!, re Lhat on a compltint or on a police report, the Magistrate is boltnd , t con.sider the que\tion as to whether the same discloses comnti.t: ittn nf an ollbnce tnd is required to form xtch on opiflion in this rc;, cct. ll1rcn (20 r3) 4 SCC 5()5 (2008) 2 SCC 4o2 4 * and clecides to issue process, he shall be s(rid to have takzn h c o n t v co n t i tt c r a t i o n l: !:,: cogntzance. At tlrc ,ruge of tokin b c'[o r e t h e c.,, ; ;,,;;? ; ;,,' ::;:s,c ::i,;:;:,:,:{:::'.i jl,ff In Fakhrudttin Ahmqd v. State of Llttaranchal and ::':';;:::"i'iJ'i"ii!:,::;,':::::,;T;;!, o sn i :.o n c c .t 7 anothera, it is held as follows: ,.Nevertheless, it s we seftletl tlnt befrtre u Magisfrarc can bc.said ro have rtAen co<,tti..n.n ^,.-,,,"::.':'t"': " ,r*irorre oJ'un o./fence, it is. imperatiye lhdt he mttst have ,rrk"n r, the aregatiorLs ,,,",ii"'i'irl,!,lL;iii,:,',":,:::,::;1,::li::i*:,:;;;i iryformalion receit,ctl fron ,t ,,,,,r., u,t,r, ,,i,ln'r' ,l,,it',3" upon, o, ,n" ca.te nury be, und the muttritrl .filcl ,t t, nee{ls little ::l;!;::;,,1::;;":'"i;!"-:!::,1;*:;::i;ii:;:;i!:f i!{i r r' !,1,1,1,?' i ilf ' ; : ;:.: : :' : : ; ::J :n!" il ii: ts tn regard b the o'ffence antl not the and decides to it?ihq I i t, c e n b c n o r,,,,, ofrence. Cognizunce olJbnder. " "r"ri,iri "1" " -

8. In view of the observations and directions of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the judgments refered to supra, the act of issuing process of summoning the accused to face criminal triar is a serious issue and such orders directing surnmons to a person to face criminal trial cannot be on the basis of cryptic orders and it should be an order reflecting application of mind by the Presiding Officer while taking cognizanceand issuing process. 9 For the foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra, n lzooa; ru scc rsz 5 and without going into the other grounds, this (l rurt ts of the considered ,,,iew that docket order dated 13.06.2r)17 passed by tlre learned Vagistrate in C.C.No.975 of 2023 on rre file of thc II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-VIIt Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kukatprr ly, Medchal Malkajgiri District, is liable to be quashed anc accordingly quashed. HorvevcL, this order will not preclutl: the iearned Magistrate tiom taking cognizance and passing or < e rs afresh in accordance v,,ith law, by giving reasons.

10. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposeci tf. Pending miscellaneous applications, if anr.. shall stand closed SD/. C. DEEPIKA ASSI{ TANT REGISTRAR l .or 2021 .1-he Note:^This order is amended as per Court orrr^e7 4p1g6 31_1z_2o2s rri" ir'ii,. No.2 of 2o25 in Criminat p;titi;; N;. 221e uat"i"r'i li\_zozs ".au. in c_liminat perition No.2219 iiiozt.inZ" uourt name mentioned ,,tt AaaitLnai.lu"nio, c-ivi I J udse _c u m _vt I i Add iti;;;l j;l;;;i,,"' ffi fl;j[?.'ir::[i::1 c3::'t K'k'ip''ii;,iliedchar '.,. r r iia iti o i J i 1t ;r i'i3',,),? 3[.fi; igl gi; n,. fi:ii.i'"'l il j'?:;;iii $;*:'r":'t"F i "t' 6 r"I' wherever it i. ;;;;;;;illtct at Kukatpallv". yj :Iyj i!!$ ;'# 3::':f ; Ji", :#l';j JJj:, Amended order accordingly. :.-:'. I \ \ l Note: .Total Amount of Rs.1,000/- (One thousand has been pajd by.S ri.lVtum ma n"n i Srinirr"l'Rlo'-' uounset tor the petitioner as directed bv the Hon,bre c o u rr order d ate d 3i _i i-2:ozi i i ili' ii". z of 2025 in criminat petition r.t..izrg .iiti?i""" " iJ;;;;;" 3g J,0^00/- (one thousand onryy to il ig tr c9 u 1 Lesar.services a,jin oriiv, -! ""j;l;;;'."rno as proof of comotiance USR No.zostiioze'iij"o on 05t0112026 and Receipt dated 31_12-_iorr-- "'' //TRUE COPY// SD/- C.DEEPIKA SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The llAdditional Junior Civit Judge _ cum_ Xlll Additionat Judicial A,4agistrate of First Ctass, t{eg.ch;i vafr<a;liri oirtri.t ,t Kukatpaily 2 The Statron House Officer, police Station, "namg;pafpet 3 Two CCs to the pUBLtCpROSIIy.TORT Hyderabad 4 One CC ro SRt MUTV|VANEN| SnrrrilVAbe ftn6"iouo"rt" tOpUCl 5. Two CD Copies Hig; C'";.r at Hyderabad (OUT) TI:,K/PSI, HIGH COURT DATED: 1111 112025 3111212025 \ HE SIA a ( O I 3 JAN 2026 { I )€.s'',n rr ':::: AMENDED ORDER CRLP.No .2219 of 2021 \ \ CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISP(:'SED OF l I l I \rlal ?s