Sri.O.Srinivas v. Obulampalli Vinay Kumar

#2. Sri. MD. Nazeer, S/o. MD. lsmail, Age. 49 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 7- 8-140, Gowtham Nagar, Balanagar ...RESPONDENT No. IIGOMPLA|NANT ...RESPONDENT No. 2/DEFACTO COfttPLAINANT 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 quash the c.c. No. 6547 ot 2022 on the file of the il Additional Junior civil Judge- cum-Xlll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Medchal Malkajgiri District, At Kukatpally, against the Petitioners/Accused No..l &2. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition urder section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandu n of Grounds of criminal petition, the High.court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings incruding the personal appearance of the Petitioners/Accused No.1&2 in cc. No. 6s47 of 2022 on the file of the ll Additionat Junior civil Judge-cum- Xlll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Medchal Malkajgiri District, At Kukatpally, pending disposal of the present quash petition. This Petir:ion coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of crin'inal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri vuthpala Sunil Kumar, Advocak: for the Petitioners, sri Jithender Rao Veeiamalla, Additional public Prosecutor on berhalf of the Respondent No. 1 . The Court made the following: ORDER I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELAIIGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.5279 of 2026 Date:09.04.2026 Between: Sri O. Srinivas and another ...petitioners/accused Nos. I and 2 AND The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and another .respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.l and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No .6547 of 2022, pending on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge cum XIII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal Malkajgiri District, at Kukatpally, for the offences punishable under Section 286 of the [ndian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 9 B (l) of Explosive Act, 1884.

#2. Heard Mr. Vuthpala Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the ^1 petitioners and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Publib Prosecutor for respondent No.1. / 2

#3. V/ith the consent of both the learned counsel, the criminal petition is disposed of at the admission stage on the ground that even ac,:ording to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the matter before the learned Trial Court has not riped for the trial yet. In view ol' the same, notice in respect of respondent No.Zldefacto complainant is dispensed with

#4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitionr:rs submitted that the learned Magistrate without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons has taken cognizance on 24.01.2022 and issued summons to the petitioners and the same is contr:rry to the principle laid down in Sunil Bharati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigationt.

#5. Tre above said submissions are not opposed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

#6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respectirze parties and after perusal of the material available on record it. reveals that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on24.01.2022 without applying his mind and without assigning any '(2q{. s) 4 scc 609 /I a/ 3 reasons, especially taken cognizance against the accused and not against the offences through cognizance order dated 24.01.2022 passed in C.C.No.6547 of 2022.

#7. It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittst 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. ln GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. fndia Infotine Limilet, 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 Enforcemnet Officer v. Videocon International Limitet, 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 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 {zorry 4 scc sos 'tryoay zscc4s2 4 Court ia Sunil Bharati Mittal's case (Supra), further hetd as follows: "liine Qua Non for taking cognizance of the ffince is the application o./ mind by the Magistrate and his satisfaction that the allegations, d proved, would constitute an olfence. lt is, therefore, imperative that on a,:omplaint or on a police report, the Magistrate is bound to consider th,z question as to whether the same discloses commission of an oJ'ence and is required to frtrm such an opinion in this respect. l{hen he does so and decides to issue process, he shall be said to have taken cognizunce. At the stuge of taking cognizance, the only consideration be.fore the Court remains to consider judiciously whether the material on which the prosecution proposes to prosecute the acatsed brings oul a primafacie case or not."

#8. Ir Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of (Ittaranchal and anotheit, it is held as follows: "Nevertheless, it is well settled that before a Magistrate can L,e said to hqve taken cognizance of an ofence, it is imperative that l.e must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the complaint or in the police report or the in-formation receivedfrom q source other than a police report, as the case may be, and the materiul Jiled therewith. It needs little emphasis that it is only when the Magistrate applies his mind and is satisfied that the allegations, d proved, would constitute an o/fence c,nd decides to initiate proceedings against the alleged offender, that i' can be positively stated that lrc has taken cognizance of the cffence. Cognizance is in regard to the olfence und not the cffender."

#9. In view of the observations and directions of the Hon'ble Supremr: court in the judgments referred to supra, the act of issuing [rrocess 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 it should olzooa;.12 jcc r57 5 be an order reflecting application of mind by the Presiding Officer while taking cognizance and issuing process

#10. For the foregoing reasons as well 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.6547 of 2022, pending on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge cum XI[[ Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal Malkajgiri District, at Kukatpally, is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. However, this order will not preclude the learned Magistrate from taking cognizance and passing orders afresh in accordance with law, by giving reasons. I l. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if zfly, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY/' SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGIS SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 The XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad The Station House Officer, Balanagar Police Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] yberabad District ly at Miyapur GtJ

#4. One CC to SriVuthpala Sunil Kumar' Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CD Cc'Pies \ VH/PSL 0m \ \ Cc ro daX HIGH COIURT DATE : 09/0412026 I \ i' STATE 3 11 $lt \et d' * t I CRLP.No.5279 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION @t,tsD