Nagarare Varalaxmi v. The State of Telangana

The State of Telangana,, Represented by its public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. Kondagorla Sumalatha, W/o Ashok Kumar Age: 37 years, Occ: Housewife Rio. H.No. RK-6 Huts, Hanumannagar, Srirampur of Naspur Mandal Now at H.No. 1-23, N/amidigattu village, Mandamarri Mandal, Mancherial Distric! 504231 ...Respondents/Complainant Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\rlemorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to is therefore prayed that this court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No, 3 in cc No. 129 of 2022 on the file of special Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mancherial. l.A. NO: 2OF 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 all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner/Accused No_ 3 in cc No. 129 of 2022 on the file of Speciat Judicial First class fvlagistrate at Mancheria l. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Merr< randum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri l,lukkera sahithi Sri Kavya, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithendar Rao veer:r ralla, the Additional Publrc Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and ncr: appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HTGH COI]RT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT TTYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.287l of 2026 Date:02.03.2026 Between: Nagarare Varalaxmi .petitioner/accused No.3 AND The State ofTelangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad and another ...respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition is hled by the petitioner/accused No.3, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.l29 of 2022 pending on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mancherial, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-4 and 506 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 ofthe Dowry Prohibition Act.

#2. With the consent of the leamed counsel for the petitioner and the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor, the criminal petition is disposed of at the stage of admission on the ground that the leamed 2 Magistrate has taken cognizance by using rubber sr rmp without recording satisfaction and without assigning any rea i rns. In view of the same, notice in respect of respondent \o.2ldefac to complainant is dispensed with.

#3. Heard Ms. Sahithi Sri Kavya Mukkera, leamt:, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learr r d Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

#4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted th .t the leamed Magistrate without recording satisfaction and without Lssigning any reasons has taken cognizance and issued summons tc, .he petitioner and the same is contrary to the principle laid down in i'unil Bharati Mitlql v. Central Bureau of Investigationt.

#5. The above said submissions are not opposed b,the learned Addltional Public Prosecutor

#6. Having considered the rival submissions r ade by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record it reveals that the leamed Magistrate has take r cognizance, without applying his mind and without assigning rny reasons, ' 1zo r :; + scc ooe 3 especially taken cognizance against the accused and not against the offences through cognizance order, passed in C.C.No.l29 of 2022-

#7. It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittal supra the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 Limitef, the Hon'ble Apex 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 Enforcemnel Olficer v. Videocon International Limircd, the Hon'ble Supreme Court white discussing the expression 'cognizance' 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 cognizance would involve application of mind by the Magistrate to the suspected commission of an offence. The Hon'ble Supreme 'izot:; a scc sos ' (2008) 2 SCC 492 4 Court in Sunil Bharati Mittal's case (S upra), ILr her held as lo llows: ''Sine Qua ltton lor taking cognizance of the offence is the t'l oJ mind bt, lhe Mogistrale and his salisfaction thot the alltl pr<tr:ed, u,ould con.\lilule an ofence. lt is, therefore, impern,, u contplainl or on u police report, the Magislrole is bound t:t the queslion us to whelher lhe same discloses comnisti offence and is required to form such an opinion in this re.s1'L he does so ond detides lo issue process, he shall be said trt t cognizancc. Al the slage of taking cognizance, the only cor s heforc the Oourt remains to consider judiciously whether tl.e on which lhe pros?cution proposes lo prosecute the accu;t oul q primo fqcie cuse or not. " tion,;. if ? that on ':onsidtr no/an :t. W hen Te loken derution nnlerial l brings

#8. In Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttu tnchal and another4, it is held as follows: "Navartheless, it is well settled that before a Mug,s be said to hdve taken cognizance of an offence, it is intpe., he musl hove lakcn nolice of the accuscttions and applied l i the qllegalions made in lhe complaint or in the police rc1't mfornrulion received from a source olher than a police rt1 r. cosc me.l he, and the material filed therewith. It n', entpha, sil thul it is only when lhe Magislrate applies his t i salisfed lhat the allegalions, if proved, would constitute t and dacidcs to iniliate proceedings agtinst the alleged of< t il can be positit'ely slaled lhot he has taken cognizu r of.fencc. ('ognirunce is in regard to the offence antl oflendar. r]te call ruind to 't. a.s the d.s little offence ler, that , of rhe not lhc

#9. In view of the observations and directions or' the Hon'ble Suprerne Court in the judgments referred to suprr the act of issuing process of summoning the accused to face crirr nal trial is a serious issue and such orders directing summons to a t :rson to face criminal trial cannot be on the basis of cryptic orders rnd it should ' (2008) l7 scc l5? be an order reflecting application of mind by the Presiding Officer while taking cognizance and issuing process.

#10. For the foregoing reasons as welI as the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra, and without going into the other grounds, this Court is of the considered view that cognizance order, passed in C.C.No.129 of 2022 pending on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mancherial, is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. However, this order will not preclude the leamed Magistrate from taking cognizance and passing orders aliesh in accordance with law, by giving reasons. I t. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR /4- (_-.., //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, I 2 3 4 6 6 The Special Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mancherial. The I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mancherial. The Station House Officer, WPS, Srirampur Police Station, Mancherial. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana' at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri Mukkera Sahithi Sri Kavya, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies {9n- tr&' s a/?sL fh., ' ,, C r:.:\,. :t.'ii,t ,t 2lli,5 i 'j -,1 .-a -, ,/, HIGH COURT DATED: 0210312026 ORDER CRLP.No.2B71 of 2026 o i-, I 0 6 t1 /,' ({;, ,iir. DISPOSING OF THE CRlMINAL PETITION -17 e el=lz0.