The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court, Hyderabad' Advala Ganqa Narsaiah, S/o. Late Chinna Gangaram, Age 37 years, Occ' Agii;rltrr" hlo. H.t!o.e-82 Lakkora Village, Velpoor Mandal, Nizamabad District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under seition 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to Quash the summoning order dated 11-12-2023 in CC' No.iO+IZOZS on the fite of the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Armoor, Nizamabad District. l.A. NO: 'l OF 2025 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 grant interim stay of all further proceedings against- the petiiioneriAccused No.4 in CC No.40412023 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Armoor, Nizamabad District' This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C M R VELU, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. E GANESH, Additional Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent No-1 and none appeared for Respondent no.2 The Court made the following: ORDER . l l i I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E'V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITTON No.4O63 OF 2A25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed seeking ' to quash the summoning order dated 11 .12 -2023 against the petitioner/accused No.4 in C.C.No.404 of 2023 on the hle of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor, Nizamabad District (for short, "the trial Court")'

2. Heard Mr.C.M.R.Velu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.tr.Ganesh, learned Assistant Pubiic Prosecutor appearlng for respondent No. 1-State.

3. Learned counsei for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the Sub Registrar/ accused No.4 and the accusation against him in the complaint is that the petitioner along with accused Nos-1, 2, 3, 6 played fraud and grabbed assigned lands in survey Nos.4O/2 and, 4Ol3 at Lakkora Village Shivar by creating false documents; that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer addressed letters to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Armoor for their permission to drop action against accused Nos.3,4,6 to 8. Upon obtaining the permission the Investigating Officer dropped action against them t 2 and filed charge sheet against accused nos. 1, 2 and 5 only. However, contrary to. the charge sheet the learned Judge of the trial Court issued stlmmons against accused Nos.l to 1O on

11.12.2023, which is abuse of process of law.

4. He further stated that the petitioner appeared before the learned Judge on 25.02.2025 whereupon he was directed to furnish personal bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties and the case was posted Lo 28.03.2025. He submits that the learned Magistrate issued summons mechanically without there being any protest petition filed by respondent No.2. Therefore, relying on the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.1687 of 2O2O, he seeks to quash the impugned proceedings.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner has already received the summons and appeared before the trial Court. Therefore, he states that, interference of this Court, at this stage, is not warranted a:rd seeks to dismiss this Criminal Petition.

6. The only ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner 1S that, the Court below has mechanically taken coglllzarl.ce o11 a printed format and issued summons. Such :*@,'.ffi *t i.r':, 3 issuance of summons, without giving any reasons is bad in view of the judgment of this Court in Alda D'souza vs. State of Telanaga and Othersl. This Court, in Alda D'souza's case, held as-under " 1 1. Issuance of process in criminal trial is a serious tssue. Unless lhe criminal Court linds adequate grounds and reasons to summon the witness, the same cannot be done. In the present case no protest application was filed by the de facto complainant questioning the deletion of the names of these peLitioners, when charge sheet was filed. As seen from the enclorsement of the learned Magistrate it was ordered to issue summons to accused No.l to accused No.S without there being any other order or reasons for issuance of summons to these petitioners against whom proceedings rvere dropped. It appears that the Magistrate r.l,ithout 6 even looking into the charge sheet, mechanically directed issuance of summons. 12. Sevcral quash petitions are being filed belcrre this Court questioning the very cognizance order taken by the learned Magistrates or the Special Courts. The cognizance orders are berefl of any reasons and bald assertions are made for taking cognizance; to illustrate, i) In some of the orders it is mentioned as "having gone through the statements and other material, the court is satisfied to take cognizance" and accordingly summons are issued; I 2O2l l-au,suit (TS) 583 '., ,,) 4 ii) In the present case, it is endorsed by the Magis[rate as "the complaint is taken on file against the accused for offences punishable U/s...."; iii) Instead of writing a Cognizance order, stamps are made and stamped on the Charge sheet/complaint and Blanks are filled about the cognizance being taken under the pcnal provisions and the nexi date of hearing is also lilled up and summons are sent to the accused; iv) In some of the cases in the remand report, police have prepared the notes of the Magistrate and the Magistrale has filled up the offences, date and signs the remand ordcr. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the casc of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2O15 4 SCC 609 case 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 trmployccs Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Limited, the, Hon'ble Supreme Court lound fault with the order of the Magistrate in issuing summons w-hen the Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction about the prima facie case agarnst thc accused. In Chief Enforcement Oflicer v. Videocon International Limited, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the expression 'cognizance' held that in criminal law 'cognizance' means becoming aware of and the word used with respect to Court or a Judgc 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 l ,ri#EEF1r7 5 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharati Mittal,s case (supra), further held as follows: "Sine Qua Non for taking cognizance ol the offence is the application o[ mind by the Magistrate and his satisfaction that thc allegations, if proved, r.r,ould constitute an offence. It is, therefore, imperative that on a complaint or on a police report, the Magistrate is bound to consider the question as to rvhether the same discloses commission of an oflence and is required to form such an opinion in this respect. When he does so and decides to issuc process, he shall be said to have taken cognizancc. At lhe stage of taking cognizance, the only consideration before Ll-re Court remains to consider judiciously n,hethcr the material on which the prosecution propos( s to prosecute the accused brings out a prima facie case or not."

7. Since the summons \vere issued mechanically on a printed format, which clearly indicates that the Magistrate has not gone into the charge sheet or documents filed along with charge sheet, before taking cognizance to apply his mind, the order of Magistrate taking cognizance is hereby set aside. However, this order will not preclude the Magistrate from taking cognizance against the petitioner, by following the directions of this Court in Alda D'souza's case (supra). This Court has not expressed any view on the complicity or otherwise of the petitioner. 6 8 Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of' Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed' Sd. S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate' Armoor' Nizamabad District- 2. The Station House Officer, Velpur P S ' Nizamabad District' 3. One CC to SRI C M R VELU Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana Two CD CoPies

5. MKN/gh (1- I I I HIGH COURT DATED:1910612025 ORDER GRLP.No.4063 of 2025 - ' .. -rj-irnE : .,. - ' ti -r':"= ()'' 'l' 1[ SEP m6 ( c,..r -,}. DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION s ."Peb X*