Dr. Ramesh Rathod v. State of Telangana

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 the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 in c.c.No. 8358 of 2022 pending on the file of the I Additional Junior civil Judge- cum-lX Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally till the present Petition is decided by the Hon'ble High Court. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of . Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr P.PRASAD, Advocate representing lr/r C. ANVESH KIRAN, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent No.1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER 1t' IN THE HTGH COURT FQR THE STATE OF T LANGANA AT HYDERABAD I THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTTCE J.SREENI i/AS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3394 of 20 ?t Date: 10.03.2026 Between: Dr.Ramesh Rathod AND ...Petitioner The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Pubiic Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, I{yderabad and another ORDER Respondents This Criminal Petition is fi1ed by the petitione:', rccused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.8358 c, 2022 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil : -rdge-cum-IX Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, F anga Reddy District, Kukatpatly

#2. Heard Mr.P.Prasad, learned counsel representing Mr.C.Anvesh Kiran, leamed counsel for the p rtitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Ieamed Addi: rnal Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 . ,2

#3. With the consent of both the leamed counsel, the criminal petition is disposed of at the admission stage on the ground that even according to the leamed counsel for the petitioner, the matter before the learned Tria[ Court has not ripened for the trial yet. ln view of the same, notice in respect of respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

#4. Upon perusal of the record, it reveals that the learned Magistrate, without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons, has takcn cogtlizance against the petitioner on

20.02.2011 and issued surlmons mechanically and passed cryptic docket order. lherefore, the docket order dated

20.02.2017 passed by the leamed Magistrate is liable to be quashed

#5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submissions made by the iearned counsel for the petitioner

#6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance, without recording satisfaction and without assigning -arc! F*t 3 any reasons against the accused and not against he offences, through docket order dated 20.02.2017.

#7. It is very much relevant to mention that in J unil Bharsti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigatiaal the Ho I ble Supreme Court held that the order of issuing process to ao used to face criminal trial is a serious issue. Such suuunoning ci nnot be done on mere asking and the Courl has to recorrl reasons for summoning a person. ln GHCL Employees StocA )ption Trust v. India Infoline Limitei., the Hon'ble Apex Co,r t found fault with the order of the Magistrate in issuing sumnt rns when the Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction about l e prima facie case against the accused. h Chief Enforcemtt i Olficer v. Vitleocon International Limited', the l'Ion'ble tl preme Court while discussing the expression 'cognizance' reld that in crirninal lau, 'cognizance' means becoming awt e of and the word used with respect to Court or a Judge initiati I 3 proceedings in respect of an off'ence. Taking cognizance v ould involve application of mind by the Magistrate to 1 re suspected ' (20 r 5) tscc 609 ' lzouy aSc.q sos '(2008) 2 SCC 492 4 commission of an offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharati Mittal's case (Supra) , further held as follows: "Sine Qua Non f<.tr taking cctgrtizLtnce ol the offence is the application of mind by thc Magislrute and his satisfitction that the allegttions, if proved, would constitltte un oJfence. [t is, thercfore, imperative that on a complaint or on a police report, the Magistrate is bound to consider the question as to urhelher tlrc same discbses commission of an o.ffence und is required to form such an opinion in this respect. Wen he does so antl decides to issue process, he shull be said to have taken cognizunce. At the stage of tuking cognEance, the only consideralion before the Court rcmains to consider.iudiciously whether the material on which lhe prot-ecution proposes to prosecute lhe accused brings out a priruafacie case or not."

#8. It Fakhruddin Ahmod v. State of Uttaranchal and anothera, it is held as follows: "Nevcrlheless, it is.*,cll !;ettled thot beJbre a Mugistrate can be said kt have taken cognizctnce of an olfence, it is imperelive that he must havc tdken nolice o.f the uccusations und applied ltis mind to the allegutions nrude in the compluint or in the police report or the inloruation received from u source otlrcr lhan u police reporL as the case may be, and tlrc rnuleriul filed therevith. lt needs little emphasis that it is only u'lrcn the Magistrate applies his mind and is satisfed lhal the ullegations, if proved, would constitute an offence and decides to initiate procecdings again:jt the alleged offender, that il can be positively slated that he hu"' taken cognizance of the offence. Cognizunca is in regard lo the offence and not the offender. "

#9. In view of the observations and directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgrnents l'eferred to supra, the act of issuing process of summoning the accused to face criminal trial is a serious issue and such orders directing summons to a person to face criminal trial cannot be on the basis of cryptic orders and n lzoos; tz scc tsz 3 it should be an order reflecting application of mind by the Presiding Officer white taking cognizance and issL i rg process

#10. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the ,rinciples laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgmerl; cited, supra, and without going into the other grounds, this (l rurl is of the considered view that docket order dated 20.02.2C 17 passed by the leamed I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Rr ldy District, Kukatpally in C.C.No.S358 of 2022 is liable to br quashed and accordingly quashed. However, this order will uo preclude the leamed Magistrate from taking cognizance and p rssing orders afresh in accordance with law, by giving reasons I l. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposec of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if anl , shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SI Sll EENIVASA REP9Y / ,TANT REGISTRAR / SECTION OFFICER To, 1, The I Additional Junior civil Judge -cum- XIX Metropol t tn Magistrate KukatPallY at MiYaPur 2'TheStationHouseofficer, ChandanagarPoliceStatiorL,Cyberabad. 3 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, Hrgh Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

#4. One CC to Mr. C. ANVESH KIRAN, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies RC/PSL rcY HIGH COURT DATED: 1010312026 ORDER CRLP.No.3394 ot 2026 r.E s i,i7r .a'_ (I\ o- o (.j kt\ 1 7 r{Atl 2[?6 t z GL t.. , .' ,./,/ Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is Di;posed of g,{a