Mujahid Mohiuddin v. NONE

#1. State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature for Telangana State.

#2. Smt. Mucharta Jyothi, W/o. Late Narsimha, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Watchman, Caste. Yadava/Golla, Fl/o. Quthubuddinguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State - Cell- 8297548016. ...Respondents/De-facto Complainant 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 proceedings in CC. No. 222312022 dated 01/09/2022 for the alleged offences under Sec. 504, 506 IPC on the file of the ll Additional Junior Civil Judge- Cum-Xlll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendra Nagar against the petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2. l.A. NO: 1OF 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 personal appearance of the petitioners in C.C.No.222312022 dated 01logl2o22 for the alleged offences U/s 504, 506 of IPC on the file of the ll Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Xlll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendra Nagar pending disposal of the main petition for quashing the same. -, Jhi: e9ltion coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds :J_trgil.?l Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T.C.K.Singh, Advocate for rne perrtroners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additionat pubtic Prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for irre Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.57l3 of 2026 Date: 16.04.2026 Between: Mujahid Mohiuddin and another petitioncrs/accused Nos. I and 2 AND The State of 'felangana Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, I{igh Court lor the State ol'Telangana and another ..respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition is fited by the petitioners/accused Nos.l and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2223 ol 2022 pending on thc flle of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum-XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad Rajendra Nagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC).

#2. Heard Mr. T.C.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Pubtic Prosecutor for respondent No. I . 2

#3. Wirh the consent of both the leamed counsel, the petrtion is disposed of at the adnrission stage on the g cven according to the learned counsel lbr the peritioners, belbre the learred l.rial Courr has nor riped for the trial lhe stagc ol surrrrnons. ln viera ol.t/lc sat).tc. nolice in r respotrdent No.2/clefacto cornprainan t is dispensed with. 4. crim inal round that the rnatter and is at espect of ljpon pcrusaj o/. thc record. it r.eve2ls thsl the learned Magist rate. rvithout recording satislhction and rvithout assigning an_v reasons, has taken cognizance agarnst the petitioners 30.08.2022 anti issuecl cryptic docket or.der sullllons nrcchalricallv and passed Thcrefore, tlte docket order clated passed g_1, the learned M agrstrate is liable to be

30.08.2022 quashed. 5 Learned Assistant I)ublic l)rosecutor has not subrn issions ntacle by the lcarned counscl lor the petitioners. 6. I{aving considered the rival subrnissions opposed the respective parties and after perusal of the record, it rel ca.ls that the learned N4 cognizance, rvithorrt recor.ding satisfbction a by the nraterial available on agistrate has taken nd without as.signing -7 3 an)' reasons against the accused and not against the offences, through docket order dated 30.08.2022.

#7. [t is very much relcvant to mention that in Sunil Bharsti Mittal v. Centrol Bureou of Investigttiont the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order o[' issuing process to accused to face criminal trial is a serious issue. Such summoning cannot be done on lnere asking and the Court has to record reasons for sunrnroning a person. ln GHCL Employees Slock Oplion Trust v. Intlia Infotine Limitei. the Hon'ble Apex Court found fault with the order of the Masistratc in issuing summons when the Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction about the prima facie case against the accused. ln Chief Enforcemnet Officer u Vitleocon Inlernalionol Limitetl3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court whilc discussing the expressiorr 'cognizance' held that in criminal law 'cognizance' lneans becoming aware of and the word used with respect to Court or a Judge initiating proceedings in respect of an offencc. Taking cognizance would involve application of rnind by the Magistrate to the suspected ' (:o rs) + scc 609 -- - t 1:ot:;+ scc sos '(2008) 2 SCC 492 4 corl, rlissiorr of a, olferce. The FIon'ble Suprcme c.ourl' in sunil Bhortti Mittol's cose (Supra), furrher held as follows: .\'inL euQ \ort ltr ttrking uryni:uttt.c of thc o/iattt.c is tha rtl4tlicution t,l nrttn/ ht tltt lLryr.rtr, rtt, Lrnd-hi.t.rtrtis[trtio,i tttut ttt,t)!tLguti,,,,s, iI Itot,t,Ll. ttotld t.otrtitutc ou t)[/L,tl,c /t t\. tltt' .lt )t.1. irttl,r:r:rttiv tltttt <ttt ,t tonltlctint ,tr ott rt lrtliL.(,,.t1,r,.rt. thr, llattttt.crtt, r, h,iuttr'l to <.o,t.sitle, llrc quc.\liolt tt: to tlrctlt.r the sr_rrtte ,lisclost-, c<tn rn-is.tiott of un o[[en<a ontl i.s rtlttircd to..[,rn .\tkh ut Lltinion itl tiit ;;:.'ipect. When lt, do, t :,' ,t'hl ,1,. i,l,: to t.gtti; ttttcc It tl^' strr:c :;';r'ri::;::;t,1",,,:::.'',1: ;:,:;!,:?,,!,::):::,::;:,:, hcforc the ( i)urt k t.,r' to con.sider .ltrlit.i,,,,sh u l,cth",) ll,e utrternl oD v,hith llrL, pnttcg4111117 pn)po.\cs kt prosc<:t e rhe accusctl bring.s otl a Jtrinu fttcit'Lttse or nol. h'r Fttkhrutldin Ahmod v. State of Uttorurnchfrl and . tttothert. it is hcld as follou,s: '),ct,L.rtht, lt,s.t rt i.y trell ta lel thut be/ot.t! d ,lIaNi\truiie can hL soil to hure tutkett .ogni:.utca o;[ utr oJlani,,. i, i, ,r,1i",r,i:r," nrr Ir ntLst ltctt,c lqkcn notic.e o[ lha acct.sttli<ttts c,nrt opptie, ct lti.i.nt-ind tn tlt,, flll, Fdtit',t\ u\klc. i.u rlh LttrtlJt/aj111 ,tt.trt ttt,, 1r,',ii,.t.,",,:,,,,,',,;;",;;.' ittfttruriiott ract'itad fittn q et)ltrLL,t)tltt.t.tltLlt u'1r,tir, ,"'1rrrt, n, th, c.\( pt(4. bt. utrl tha ntuleriul filc,l tlttr,,r,rtlt 1, i,"r',,'ii' ),r,," cutlthusis thui it it ott/r rhcn the ,l.lugi:rrrt/r.,rr1t1tlr1,t i,,, ,,),,)'rrrt ,, .tuti..\.fi.ed thet tha r legotions, if pro,r,t,l, yor cl c,tt.trit rtitc',tr' oVi,,r" arul de(ide.t tt) initi:uc pt.occcdings agttut\t ,t,",,tt"yr,,t ,,17),,,i,t:",:' , trnt it t:un he /).\ttryly .\tdted thut lte lt.r tukttuiri,,,1),r"''ri'rn" qftt, nce. C'ogninrtca i.s in regru-d to tha o.flijt;e ;;;'n:;l o[/a nder. 'the - 9 In r,ier.r, of tltc obsen, ations and directions ol the llon, ble Supreme Colrt in the.judgments referred to supra, the act of rssurng process or- sulrmoning trre accuscd to face criminal trial is a serious issue and such or.ders directing sunrlons to a person to face criminal trial cannot be on the basis of cryptic orders and ' (:oo8) tz scc r sr .) it should be an order rellecting application of mind by the Presiding Olficer while taking cognizance and issuing process.

#10. L'or the foregoing reasons and in vicw of the principles laid down by the Ilon'ble Apex Courl irt the judgments cited sapra, and without going into the othcr grounds, this Cour-t is of the considered view that dockct ordel dated 30.08.2022 passed by the learned II Additional Junior Cii, il Judge-cum-Xlll Additionat Metropolitan Magistlate, Cyberabad Rajendra Nagar C.C.No.2223 of 2026 is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. However, this ordcr wi ll not preclude the learned Magistrate from taking cognizance and passing orders afresh in accordance with law, by giving reasons. 11 Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ,,TRUE COPY'/ Tl;tlxput?JYtxI SECTION OFFICER 'o',t The ll Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Xlll Additional Metropolitan ;Yff sl',',1il"-":,:Jffi *if,:Jh["+t'g[""::'l*,"],.,ffi ,,Hvderabad i. t*" CCs to the Pu *. 8,Y"1" to srir'c K'singh' Advocate toPucl 5. Two CD CoPies HIGH COURT DATED: 1610412026 ORDER CRLP.No.5713 of 2026 E L4 s 4 't =o- A o .l.r ( 'q,)|: '!.t7t 'l L-! a, DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION (g,rt* ?u\ \Hs