Madham Sudhakar v. State of Telangana & Ors.

the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the SC, SPLi005/2023 On The file of The ll Additional District And Sessions Judge For SC ST And (POA)Act Cases Court At Warangal, for the Offence U/s 294(b),3('l) (s)SC, STPOAACTinconnectiontotheFlR no.21512022 ontheFileof the P.S Ghanpur. l.A. NO: 1OF 2026 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 Stay of all further proceedings in SC. SPL/005/2023 On The file of The Il Additional District And Sessions Judge For SC ST And (POA)Act Cases Court At Warangal, for the offence U/s 294(b), 3(1) (s) of the sc, sr (poA) ACT rn :onnection to the FrR no.21512o22 on the File of the P.S Ghanpur (M). This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing he Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the argurr --nts of sri Mandara Nagendra Babu , Advocate for the petitioner and sri Jithend<; Rao veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No . The Court made the following: ORDER ffi?t I I I i l I I l IN THE IIIGH COURT FOR THE S1'A'I'E OF TELANGANA AT HYDERAI}AI-) THE HONOURABLE SRI .II] STICI.] .I.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PE'I'II'ION Nn.27 I 7 ol' 2026 Date:26.O2.2026 Between: Madham Sudhakar petitioner/accused AND State of Telangana. Represented by its t'ublic Proseculor. High Court through the Sub-lnspccror of Police. Ghanpur (M), Jayashankar Bhupalpallr and anorher .respondents oRDUri 'lhis Crimina[ [)elition is llled by the petitioner/accused, seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C SPL.No.005 of 2023 on the file of the II Additional District ancl Scssions Judge for SC/ST and (POA) Act Cases Court. at Warangal, fbr the offences punishable under Sections 29a(b) ol'thc Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3( l)(s) ot'the SCs & S I's (I,OA) Act.

#2. I Ieard Mr. Mandala Nagendla []abu, learrred counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Vccrarnalla, leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No. I 2

#3. With the consent ol' both the learned couns _' . this crirninal petition is disposecl ol at thc adrnission stage. [iven r :cordirrg to the learned Adclitional I)ublic l)rosccutor notice or ltri lnI llllatlolt lll respect of rcspondent No.2lcle facto cornplainant is ot required on the ground that the learned trial Court has takcr: --ognizance on 3 1.0 t.2023 and issued sumrlons to the petitioner n i, iew ol' the sar.ne, noticc in res;-rcct of rcspondent No.2lde.fact,t contplainant is d ispcr.rsed u ith

#4. During the coursc of hearing, learncd (., utlscl lor the petitioner vchernently subrnittcd that the learned N,l r listrate r.vithout recording satisfaction and without assigning any r('r sons has taken cognizance on 3 I .01 .2023 and issued summons to r r ) petitioner and tlre sar.r'rc is contrary to thc principle laid down i. ,Sunil Bharati Mittfil v. Cenlrul Rureau oJ lnvestigtliont,

#5. Having consideled the rival subnrission: madc bv the rcspective parties and after pcrusal of the rnater irl available on record it revcals that the lear.ned Magistratc has t: ien cognizance on31.01.2023 wilhout apptying his mind and rvitho t assigning any reasons, especially taken cognizance against thc e:cuscd and not ' 12or ry,t scc 6oo 3 against the olGnces through cognizance order passed S.C.SPl..No.005 ol 2023

#6. It is very rruch relevant to ntcnrion that in Sunil Bhtrati Miltal supra the Hon'ble Suprerne Coun hetd that the order of issuing process to accused to tbce crirrinat trial is a serious issue. Such summoning cannot be donc on r'ncrc asking and the Court has to recold reasons for summoning a person. ln GHCL Employees Stock Oplion Trust t'. Indfu Infolinc l-imitei, the I{on'bte Apex Court fbund fault with the oldcl ol' thc Magistrate in issuing sumrnons when the Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction about the prima facie case againsr the accused. ln Chief Enforcemnet Officer v. Videocon Internutionul Limitu(f , the Hon'ble Supreme Court u,hile discussing the expression 'cogniz-ance' held that in crinrinal larv 'cognizance' meatls beconring awarc ol and the rvord uscd r.r.ith r.cspcct to Court or a Judge initiating proceedings in respect of an offence. Taking cognizance would involve application of rrrind by the Magistrate to lhe suspected cornmission ol an ol-lcncc. 'the I Ion'ble Supreme r 1zo uy a scc sos ' (zooa) z scc asz 4 Court in Sunil llltarati Miltfll's case (Supra), I Lrther held as lollows '.\ine ()tn ,\ort lrt tuking t.otttiz{ut(:c of the olfencc i: rlt qtltliatun rt/ tttinrl ttr llr \Lugr.trutt, tuttl hi.\ sutis-fucttott thot the , I ,ytiotts, i/ prorctl. rorltl LctD.\titttt( (D oflcnte. lt i.s, therefbre. inl? t ti\.t, thot on tt cotnpliutl or on u lttlit.t, r(lt)rt, tllc Mugistrole i.\ hott t tt) (o si(lct. lhe q !.\ti(rn ur to thatltL,r tlrc sa lc dt.scloses conrt,r tiott oJ'ttt o.ffenct' trnd is required to.fonn suc.h an opinion in this r oect. tt'hL,tt ht, doct'onntl tlccidt.s tct i.tttrl'Jty111gg5. he shall he sairl r lutc takan cogttizttlcc ,4t thc .\tagc ol tuking cognizance, lhc onl,: ,r 'lsitlarcttion belore tlrc Court rcuuins ro trtnsiderjudiciouslv vh<tthct he uaterial on x,lticlr the ltoscculiort proposes to prosecule lhe uLt retl brings ottl tt prinru.[otic tu.\e ot.not.'

#7. In Fakhrudditt ,4hmtd t'. Stote o.f l);t rronclrul ond (n\lhert, it is heltl as lirllorr s 1 \ e lr, rllzg1c.r r. it it tcll scttled lhat heft.a u .\,., bc ttrtt/ to lunc tukan c'sgtti:ttttcc o/un <tfence. it i.t i1 hc ttust hcl'c tuk(u tloti((,of the accusations urul uppii,, llt ulltgdiotts rtttulc n tltc crttnpluint or it the p<tlicc t infornr, tion rt, ce itL:el .frou u source other than o polict, t co.\(, t)ktt' ht tttLl the nrutcriul .filed lherev, ith. lt euplur'is lhut it i.\ onl)) v hen lhe Magistrate qpplie s ht\ sotisfiul thot tlrc ollegutions. if proved, y'ould con.stitt t artd det ule.s to initiete proceadings again:jt lhe allegetl ,. it ctut ha Tt.tittrclv \tetcd tllat he hos taken c'ogrt - o[f<'rttc. ('ogrti:rrttcc i.s rn regard lo the ol[cnu r offurl. r un ,tfJ'e n<e lerrclar, tlrrl

#8. In vicrr ol' thc obscrr ations and directions rl- thc I ton, ble Supreme (loLrrt irr the .judenrents referred to srr ra, tl-re ac1 of lssuinq proccss o1'suDllnoniug the accused to lace r; iu-rinal trial is a serious isslte and such orders directing summons tc rperson to face criminal trial cannot be on the basis of cryptic ordr s and it should ' 1zoos) tz scc :: 5 be an order reflecting application ol mind by rhe Presiding Officer whilc taking cognizance and issuing process 9 For the loregoing reasons as wcll as the principles laid down by the Hon'blc Apex Courl in the judgments cited supra, and without going into the other grounds, this Court is of the considered view that cognizance order datcd 31.01.2023, passed in S.C.SPL.No.005 of 2023 on the file of rhe II Additional District and Sessions Judge for SC/ST and (POA) Act Cases Court, at Warangal, is liabte to be quashed and accordingly quashed. However. this older will not preclude thc learned Magistrate from taking cognizance and passing orders alrcsh in accordance with larv, by' giving rcasons.

#10. Accordingly, the criminal petition is clisposed of. Pending rniscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closcd. //TRUE COPY// SD/. L.VIJAYA LAXMI SSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, Court At Warangal. 1 The ll Additional District And Sessions Judge F 2, The Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class 3. The Station House Officer, Ghanpur Police Station, Jaya Shankar- C ST And (POA)Act Cases Bhupalpally. Bhupalpally.

#4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

#5. One CC to Sri Mandala Nagendra Babu, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED: 2610212026 ORDER CRLP.No.2717 of 2026 ,* .. * i i''r '--i r.'.- u '' '' + 0 :j iiLi, 2t2$ 'i.')' '-.1 ,l t" !t' :,, \, \. DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION o