Kottam Veeraiah (A-3), Sio K. Sandaiah, Age: 69 years, Occ: .Retd v. The State of Telangana, Through WPS Saroornagar & Anr.

Public Prosecutor, High Court of TS. . .. Respondent

2. K. Vineetha, W/o. K. Sanieev Kumar, Age: 33 years, Occ. House Wife, Rl/o. 11-1Ol'1511 , Vijayapuri Colony, Kothapet, Rangareddy ...RespondenUDe'facto Complainant Petitlon 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 quash the proceedings initiated against the Petitioners/Accused No. 2 to 6 in C. C. No. '12'l 5 ol 2021 (Crime No. 3912021) for the offences under section 498-4, 323, 504, 506 of lPC, Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act on the file of learned V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B. Nagar. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in he circumstances stated in the lllemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, te High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C. C. No. 121a| lO21 on the file of Ivletropolitan Magistrate. at L.B. Nagar including appearanc( rf the Petitioners, pending disposal of above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing t I r l\.4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argunre rts of Ms Keerthi Reddy, learned Counsel representing Sri CH Venkat Redd y ,Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri l\rl Vivekanada Reddy, the Assistant P r rlic Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Mr Bhakthi B. Turakh z, learned Counsel representing Mr Sujith Jaiswal on behalf of the Respondent lJ r.2 . The Court made the following: ORDER HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2597 of 2O2L DATE:21.OL.2026 Between : Kottam Bhagvavathi and four others Petitioners/Acctr sed Nos.2 [o 6 ANI) The State ol Telangana, Throu gh WPS Saroornagar, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court ol TS and another :ORDER: Respondents This Crirninal Petition has been filed under Section 182 of the Code of Crirninal Pr-ocedure , pctitioners/ accu secl Nos.2 to Cr secking to ql-ash the procecdings in C.C.No.1215 of 2O2l on the file o[ Lhe 197 3, by Lhe V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B.Nagar, registered for the offences punishable urlder Sections '198--4., 323, 5O4 and 506 of tLre Inclian Penal Code, 186O (lor short, 'ttre IPC') and St:ctions 3 and 4 of thc Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, 'the D.P. Act').

2. Flearci Ms. Keerthi Reddy, lcarned counsel representing Mr. Ch. Ver-rkat Rcddy, Iearned counscl for the petitioners, Mr. Bhakti B. T\rrakhia, learned counsel rcpresenting Mr. Sujith 2 lcarnecl counsel for Jaiswal. Mr. M. Vivckananda Reddy, learned Assistant I appcaring on behalf of respondent No' 1-State' respond: 1t No-2 and ublic Prosecutor Lca;ned counscl for the petitioners st' 3. petitioners never harassed respondent No'2 e t mentally for additional dowry Even accordinl' made in thc: corrrplaint and the final report ' t the oflences under Sections 498 A and 323 I attractccl. She further submitted that petitio - residing at tl-rcir respective places, which are t another, and that thc petitioners never liver1 No.2. Respotrdent No 2 has implicated all tlL' of accused No.1 by making ornnibus allegr Nbs.1 and 2 are the parcnts, and petitioner I slsters of accused No.1. Hence, the cor proceedings against the petitioners is a ci' ,rnitted Lhat thc her physicallY or -o the allcgations -re ingre dienls ol ' the: IPC arc l'rot :r Nos.3 Lo 5 are ifferent from onc with respondent fa.rnily rnembers ions. Petitioner os.3 to 5 arc the tinuation of the ar abuse ol the process of lau'

3. 1. She fi.l't l-rer submitted that the learned ! agistrate' without recording satisfaction or assigning reasonsr trl rk cognizance and isstred surnmons on 27 .O2.2021 , which is corr rary to law' Per contra, learned counsel for respond: rt No 2 submitted 4. that whether the petitioners have committed .he offences or nol t i has to be adjr.rdicated and decided by the trial Court a.fter a fuli_ fledged trial- There are specific allegatrons levelled against the petitioners, and therefore, they are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No. l2l5 of 2O2l.

5. Having considered the rival sttbmissions rnade by the respective parties and ttpon perusal of the material availablc on record, it reveais that the learned Magistrate, without recording satisfaction or assigning any reasons, took cognizance and issr-rccl summons to the petitioners on 27 .O2,2021 .

6. It is very rnuch relevant to rnention that in Sunil Bharati Mittal w. Central Bureau of Inwestigationr, the Honble Suprerne Court held that the order ol-issuing process to accused to face criminal trial is a serious issue. Such summoning canrrot be done on mere asking and the Court has to record reasons for sumrnoning a person. In GHCL Ernployees Stock Option Trust w. India Infoline Lirnitedz, the Hon'ble Apex Court found fault with the order of the Magistrate in issuing sllrrrmons when the Magistrale has not recorded his satisfaction about the prirna facie case against the accused. In Chief Enforcernent Officer v. Videocon Internatlonal Limited3, the Hon'ble Suprerne Court while discussing the expression 'cognizance' held that in I 2 l (201s) 4 SCC 609 (2013) 4 SCC s0s (2008) 2 SCC 492 4 crirninal iaw 'cognizance' rneans becorning : l'are of ar-rd the Judge initratrng word used u,ith respect to Court or i1 proceedings in respect of an offence Taking ognizance rvould involve applicarion of mind by the Magistratr: to the susPectecl comrnisslon of an offence. The Hon'ble Suprer re Court in Sunil Bharati Mittal's casc supra, further held as frr lows: ' "Sine Qr-t:r Notr for takit-tg cognizance t the application o[ rnind by the Magis - satjsfaction that the allegatious, if proved, s c an offencc. lt is, thcrefore, imperative thal l or on a police report, tl-re Magistrate is bot; the qLrestioll as to $'hethcr Lhe same dtsclol;' of an offence and is requircd to form sucl this respecl. When hre does so and de: process, he shall be said to have taken coer sLage of taking cognizance, the only consic thc Court rcmains to consider judicious I rnaterial on which the prosecution propos l the accuscd brin gs out a prima facie case or the offence is atc and his rld consLitute r a compLalnt cl to consider s cornmissiot-r an opinior-r in des to issue izance. At the :ration before wlrether the rto proseclrte rot."

7. In Fakhruddin Ahrnad v. State of Uttaranchal and anothera, rt is held as follows "Ncvertheless, it is well settled I Magistrate can be said to have taken cc,1 offence, it j.s irnperative that LIe must have the accusations and applied his mind to made in the complaint or in the policrr inforrnatron received from a source other report, as the case rnay be, and the -lat before a nizance of an aken notice of he allegalions report or the thar-r a police material filed 1 (zoo8) 17 scc 157 5 thereu,ith. It nceds little emphasis that it is only rvhcn the Magistrate applies his mind and is satisfied that the allegatlons, if proved, rvould constitute an oflence and decidcs to initiate proceedings against the allegecl offcr-rclcr, lhaI rt can bc positivell.'slated that he l-ras tal<en cognrzance of the oflence. Cogr-rizance is in regard to thc offence and not the offender."

8. ln view of thc obse rvations and directions of the Hon'ble Srrprcn-re Court in thc judgrnents referred to supra, the act o[ issuring proccss for summoning an accused to lace a crinrinal tri:rl is zr scr-ior. s issue and such orders directing [hc issualrce o[ summons to a pcrson to face criminaf trial cannot bc passeci on the basis o1' cryptic ordcrs and it should be an orcler reflecting clue application o[ mind by the Presiding Officer while taking cognizancc and issuing process.

9.. For the foregoing reasons as well as in vicu, of the principles laid dorvn by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra, and withouI going into the other grounds, this Court is of the considered vierv that docket order dated 27.O2.2021 passed in C.C.No.1215 of 2O2l on thc file of thc V Adclitional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B.Nagar, is liable to be quashcd and is accordingly quashed. However, this order will not prech-rde the learned Magistrate from taking cognizancc and passing orders afresh in accordance with law, by giving rcason s. 6 r- 1O. Accordingly, the criminal pelition is dispr,, ed of Misccllancor-rs applications, pendir-rg i1' . rry, shall stand cl oscd sD/- N cHA t lf;iJ'-tttsrEiR //TRUE COPY// o SECTION OFFICER \ \ To,

1. The V Additional Chief tr/etropolitan Magstrate B Naqar 2 The Station no"" Ottl""''t"u't"tl*g" WpS"Police S I rtion' Rachakonda i. t*o CCs to the p,uri" pio#'l;;: ;ifi Court for the s'r rte of Telangana at 4 ljl," #; 's-ri cn venrat Reddv' Advocate^[oPuC] ; il 66 i" .n suiith Jaiswal ' Advocate loPucl 6. Two CD CoPies Hvderabad.(OUT) Sa/PSL ,lk&, HIGH COURT DATED:2110112026 \_ ORDER CRLP.No.2597 ot 2O21 ( I * .,1 $ o + Lr- ,, ( 11ctH + DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION 12etl .).2. 26 ),f t l