Baragada Chinkavenkaiah v. Smt. Baragada Kumari

#6. Smt. Tumpuri Rani, Wo Veerabhadram Aged about 46 years, agriculture coolie, Resident of H. No. 2-8611, Garibpeta, Ramavaram Village, Kothagudem Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District.

#7. Tumpuru Srinivasa Rao, S/o T- Veeraswamy Aged about 42 years, RMP Doctor, Resident of H. No. 11-99, Nimmalagudem Colony, Seethampeta Village, Sujathanagar Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District. AND ... Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 7 1 . The State of Telangana,, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. Through Station House Officer, Sujathnagar Polic,e Station, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District,

#2. Baragadi Aruna, Wo Late Venu Aged about 43 years, Tailor, Resident of Muthayalamma Nagar, Manuguru Muricipality, Manuguru Mandal, Bhadradri- Kothagudem District ...RespondenURespondent ...Respondents/Defacto 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 call for records in cc No.'199't of 2o2s on the file of ll Aaditional Judicial iVlagistrate of First Class, Kothagudem and to quash the same. l.A. NO: 2 t)F 2026 Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petiiio;, the High court may oe preaseo to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to cc No isgt or z02s on ti-re file of ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Kothagudem pending disposal of euash Petition and to grant such other order or orders in the interest of jJstice. ^ This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar Petition and upon helring the arguments of sri R R Karyan, Advocate for the Petitioner and sri Jithendei Rao Veeramalla, Additional public Prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No.l and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court rnade the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COIJRT FOR THE STATE OF' TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.6949 ot2026 Date: 30.04.202 6 Between: Baragada Chinkavenkaiah and six others AND State of Telangana and another ...Petitioners ...Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 7, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.l991 of 2025, on the fite of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem.

#2. Heard Mr.R.R.Kalyan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No,I

#3. With the consent of both the learned counsel, the criminal petitio)!$ disposed of at the admission stage on the ground that even according to the leamed counsel for the petitioners, the matter 2 before the leamed Tnal Court has not ripened for the trial yet. In view of the same, notice in respect of respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

#4. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submits that the leamed Magistrate, without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons. has taken cognizance against the petitioners and issued summons mechanically and passed cryptic docket order. Therefore, the docket order passed by the learned Magistrate is liablc to be quashed.

#5. Learned Assistant Public prosecutor has not opposed the submissions made by the leamed counsel for the petitioners.

#6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the leamed Magistrate has taken cognizance, without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons against the accused and not against the offences, through docket order. J

#7. It is very much relevant to mention that ra Sunil Bharati Mittal v- Central Bureau of Investigatiozl 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 Emproyees stock option Trust v. India Infoline Limite&, the Hon, ble Apex Court found fault with the order of the Magistrate in issuing surnmons when the Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction about the prima facie case against the accused. In Chief Enforcemnet Officer v. Wdeocon fnternational 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 respecl to Court or a Judge iniriating 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 Court trr Sanil Bhurati Mittal's case (Supra), further held as follows: ' lzots; + scc eoe '(2013) 4 scc sos ./ ' (2008) 2 SCC 492 ./ +<-.-,1 \ -rI 4 "Sine Qua Nonfor taking cognizance of the olfence is the, application of mfni by the Mugr*rate aid his satisfaction that the allegations' if jroved, would constitute an offence lt is, therefore.' imperdtive that on o, on u police ,iport, the Magistmte is bound. trt consider 'n the question as tt'' whethei the same discloses commission of an "o*ploin, o.ff"i"" onrl is required tct form such an <tpinion.in this. respect' lVhen ii do", ,o and dicides to issue process he shall be said to have taken cognizance. At tc stage of tabing cognizance' only consideration belore the Court rt'mains io consider judiciously wh, ether the material oi which the prosecution proposes to prosecule the accused brings out a Prima.facie cuse or not. " ln Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of [Jttaranchal and .the

#8. another4, it is held as follows: "Nevertheless, it is well settted that before a Magistrate can be saitl to have taken cognizance of an offence' it is imperotive that he must have taken ntttici of the accusations and applied his mind trt the allegations made in the complaint or in the police report or the iilrlor^iic,, ,nr"ir"d lrom a source other than a police report' as the ,irro ,ro1' be, and the material filed therewith lt needs little e*phasfi thot it is only when the Magistrate applies his mind qnd is .roiirtr"d ,hot tht: allegations, if proved, would constitute an oJfence und clecitles to itritiuti proceedings against thc alleged offender' -that i.t can be positively itated that he has taken cognizance of the olfcnce. Cignizance is in regard Rt the offence and not the offender.' g. In view of the observations and directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in the judgments referred to supra, the act of issuirg process of summoning the accused to face criminal trial is a serious issue and such orders directing sufirmons to a person to face criminal trial cannot be on the basis of cryptic orders and it should be an order reflecting application of mhd by the Presiding Officer while taking cognizarlce and issuing process' o izoosy tz scc tsl 5

#10. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgmetts cited supra, and without going into the other grounds, this Court is of the considered view that the cognizance order 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.

#11. Accordingty, the criminal petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- P.C.SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYIII To,

#1. The ll Additional Judici 2. The Station House al Magistrate of First Officer, Suiathanag ass, hagudem lice Station, Bhadradri SECTION OFFICER Kothagudem

#3. Two CCs to Public P Hyderabad [OUT] 4. One CC to Sri R R Kal 5. Two CD Copies ABK /ka rosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at yan, Advocate IOPUC] I { HIGH COURT DATED: 3010412026 OROER CRLP.No.6;949 ol 2026 r lHE SDq 0 5 llrY 2l]2$ (-; -r:.i/ 9i1r,r6H DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION I, 4