SRl. P v. L. BHANU PRAKASH

Petition under Section 528 of B,N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in c.c No.2212 of zozs on tne rile of lll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class at Khammam in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P. V. L. BHANU PRAKASH Counsel for the Respondent No.,l : ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 : SRI CH. SUBRAMANYAM The Court made the following ORDER: .j THE HONOURABLE SR!JUSTICE N.TUKAI AMJI CRIMINA L REVISION CASE No.824 OF',2t25 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Se< :ions 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagaik Suraksha Sanhitha, 23 23 (BNSS) by the petitioners, assailing the order dated 11.07.2025 1 assed in C.C No.2212 ot 2025 on the file of the learned lll Ad,i tional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam.

2. Heard Mr. P.V.L. Bhanu Prakash, learned or unsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ch.Subramanyam, learned counsel :r respondent No.2, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1-State

3.'l . Learned counsel for the petitioners cont,] rds that the cognizance order dated 11.O7.2025 passed b't the learned Magistrate suffers from non-application of mind. He r; bmits that the order is mechanical in nature and fails to reflect an' reasoning or judicial satisfaction regarding the existence of a prim:r acie case.

3.2. He relies on several decisions of this Court arr d the Hon'ble Supreme Court, holding that a cognizance order must be a speaking and reasoned one, demonstrating that the Magistra e has applied 2 his mind to the materials before taking cognizance' Reliance is placed on the orders passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court dated 06.10.2025 in Crl.R.C. No 676 of 2025' 04'04'2017 in Cr|.P. No.2458 of 2017, and 06.01.2025 in Crl'P' No 6604 of 2020' whichreiteratetheprinciplethatacrypticorder,devoidofreasons' cannot be sustained.

4.1 . Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No. 't-State, and learned counsel for respondent No 2 submit that the complaint filed by respondent No' 2 clearly discloses thecommissionofcognizableoffencesinvolvingforgeryand cheating. They contend that the material on record prima facie establishes fraudulent execution of a document by the petitioner under the prete)d of securing an old-age pension for the de facto complainant.

4.2.ltisfurthersubmittedthatthematterwasdulyplacedbefore the learned Magistrate' who, after perusing the record' took cognizance of the offence and issued summons' The State submits that the order of cognizance is legally sustainable' and that the requirement of a detailed charge sheet is not a condition preceden! for taking cognizance once the Magistrate forms an opinion that a 3 prima facie case exists, as held by the Hon'ble Supr lme Court in State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfafta, (,1 r19) 20 SCC

539. They, therefore, pray for dismissal of the revision J etition.

5. I have carefully perused the material on record zrr d considered the rival submissions of both learned counsel

6. The stage of taking cognizance represents a crur ial juncture in criminal proceedings. lt is at this point that the Magri ;trate applies judicial mind to the materials placed by the investigat 19 agency or complainant and decides whether sufficient grounds er st to proceed against the accused

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods l- d. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1 998) 5 SCC 749, emphasized thi t the process of taking cognizance must reflect application of nind by the Magistrate to the facts and materials, as this is r ot an empty formality. Similarly, in GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. lndia lnfoline Ltd., (2013) 4 SCC 505, the Apex Court obr;r'rved that the Magistrate must indicate, even briefly, that he has lxamined the complaint and material evidence and is satisfied that here exists a prima facie case for issuance of process. The or ler need not I 4 t- . contain detailed reasons, but must at least disclose judicial application of mind.

8. ln the present case, the impugned order of cognizance dated

11.07.2025 is in the form of a rubber-stamped pro forma, wherein the sections, accused numbers, and dates are merely filled in without any narrative or reasoning. There is no indication that the learned Magistrate has examined the complaint, statements, or documents or that he has formed an independent opinion regarding the sufficiency of material to proceed.

9. ln these circumstances, this Court is of the cbnsidered view that such a mechanical exercise of jurisdiction amounts to non- application of mind. The impugned order fails to satisfy the basic requirement of judicial reasoning as contemplated under Section 210(3) read with Section 216 BNSS, 2023, which mandates the Magistrate to record satisfaction as to the existence of a case warranting further proceedings. ln this view, this Court holds that the impugned cognizance order suffers from procedural impropriety and jurisdictional error. r

10. ln view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order dated

11.07.2025 passed in C.C. No.2212 ot 2025 on the file of the lll '. I i t i I j : : ! i i I 5 Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khamntr rm, is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Mztt istrate with a direction to reconsider the materials filed by th': prosecution, including the charge sheet and accompanying doctrr rents, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order on taking cogni; ance, in strict compliance with the provisions of the BNSS, 2023, er d the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The above err rcise shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the late of receiPt of a copy of this order.

11. With these directions, the Criminal Revisiort Case stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stanc ;losed' I; I/- T. VIJAY KUMAR D:PUTY REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Ill Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khar mam. 2. The Sub -lnspector of Police, Konijerla Police Station, I'( ammam Dist. 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State < [Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

4. One CC to SRl. P. V. L. BHANU PRAKASH, Advocate [ )PUC] 5. Two CD Copies kul/PR HIGH COURT DATED:{ 8/11/2025 ORDER CRL.R.C.No.824 ol 2O25 li, , -Q-J' 2 2 0:l M ) .:i f;. ALLOWING THE CRL.R.C \nd! i i I i I i i i I t I