The High Court · 2025

Smt. Chinthala Leelavathi, W/o Chinthala pradeep Kumar, Age_ 40 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee. R/o H.No. l-20-10.1, Chinna Thokatta, frf evi eoweripafiy, Secunderabad RESPONDENT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS 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 the records in connectron with the sc. No. 394 of 2o2s oi the file of the Hon'bre rv Additionar Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, incruding cognizance orders dtd. 09.07.202s passed in sc.No. 3-94 ol zo25 uy ine non'utE Me^kopolitan sessions Judge, Hyderabad, registered under section ioe Rfu. t t +, 202 0f lPC, and inctuding cognizance orderi dto.05.t 2 2024 in pRC.No.514 0i 2024 passed by the xvil Additionar chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered under sections 308 R/w.114, 202 of lpC. and quash the-same by allowing the above petition to the extent of petitioner/A2. I.A. NO: 2 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 stay all further proceedings in connection with sc No. 394 ot 2026 on the file of lV Additionar sessions Judge, Hyderabad, incruding personar attendance of the Petitioners/Accused criminal petition. No.2, pending disp rsal of the above This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing ll 3 Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the rrguments of Sri MUMTVANENI SRINIVASA RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner r nd of Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Sta r of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for Respcr dent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER r THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRTMINAL PETITI ON No.14 991 0F 2025 ORDER: 1.. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No2 seeking the Court to quash the cognizance order dated 09'07'2025 passed in S.C.No.394 of 2025 by the learned Sessions Judge' Hyderabad, registered under Sections 308 read with 114 and 202 of lPC, including the cognizance order dated 05 12'2024 in PRC No.5l4of2024passedbythelearnedXVllAdditionalChiefJudicial tvlagistrate, Hyderabad, registered under Sections 308 read with '1 '14 and202 of lPC.

2.HeardargumentssubmittedbySrilttlummaneniSrinivasaRao' learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No 2 as well as Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No l - State

3. The learned petitioner's counsel has submitted that the cognizance orders are mechanically passed by the learned XVll Additional Chief Judicial ti4agistrate, Hyderabad and also on being committed to the Court of Sessions, the learned lV Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, has passed the cognizance orders in a mechanical manner. He therefore prayed to quash both the orders 2 \ ETD,] Crl.P No.14991 2025 and to remand the matter to the trial court for relr )nsideration of the said matter 4 The rearned Additionar pubric prosecutor r, s submitted that appropriate orders may be passed in this case r accordance with

5. Perused the record. The record discloses t rat the petitioner herein is the accused No.2 in pRC No.514 of 201,.: and SC No.394 of 2025. The allegations in the charge sheet por rt out that while accused No.'l was driving the Verna car bearing I,l t.TS_08/JN_6663 in drunken condition, whire the accused No.2 was arso in drunken condition, accused Nos.3 to S had encouraged him r: drive the car in drunken state. As a result, when the car reached rr rar Swadeshi ,y, Junction, Road No.36, Jubilee Hills at about 5.00 hc ;rs, it got hit the motorbike from its back side, due to which, the br tther of the de_ faclo complainant died on the spot with grievous r juries while the other person received injuries. After the accident tlt > accused went to accused No.6, parked the crime car at the house r f accused No.6 and accused No.6 took them in his Ertiga car bearir g No.TS_Og/JJ_ 7281

6. The Trial Court, on receiving the charge sheet, has taken it on its.file as PRC for the offences under Sections 304(ii) 338, 114,201 3 tTo,l Crl.P.No.14991 2025 and202 of IPC and Sections 184, 185, 187 read with 205 of IV.VAct against accused No.1 for the offence under Section 308 r/w 114 of the IPC against accused Nos.2 to 5 and issued summons to accused Nos.'l to 6.

7. The office note is put up by the staff and the Magistrate has simply signed the said cognizance order without assigning any reason for taking cognizance. lt is contended by the petitioner's counsel that the Trial Court ought to have assigned reasons that " prima facie the Court could make out the commission of offence and thus, the summons are issued" without which there would be violation of mandatory provision under Cr.P.C.

8. lssuance of summons is not a mechanical course of action but it requires application of mind by the Magistrate to decide whether there is any prima facle case against the accused for issuance of summons.

9. The petitioner's counsel has relied upon the orders passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.7656 of 2025, dated 24.07.2025 and also the orders of the Co-ordinate benches in Crl.P.No.8'1 36 of 2025 dated 03.07.2025 and Crl.R.C.No.B16 of 2023, dated

16.12.2023 and the said petitions were allowed quashing the cognizance order. 4 ITD,J Crl.P.No.11991 2025 10 Learned counser arso reried upon a decision c f the Apex court in Suni/ Bhafti Mittat v- centrar Bureau of rnvestigationl and Fakhruddin Ahmad v. state of rJttaranchar and i,nothef . rn rhe cited decisions, the Apex Court has held thet there should be .above proper application of mind by the committal - ourt for taking cognizance and also the Sessions Court has to al;: ign reasons for taking cognizance of the offences. ln the present cit;e, there are no such reasons assigned while issuing summons to he accused by the Xlll Additional lVletropolitan frlagistrate, Rajendre Nagar and the order is very cryptic. 11' lt is pertinent to note that the charge sheet vas fired under Sections 304(ii), 338 and 201 of lpC and Section; 184, 185, 187 read with 205 of M.V Act against accused No.1, wl-ile it is alleged that accused Nos.2 to 5 have attempted to comm t the offence of culpable homicide and thus their act constitutes offt: rce punishabre under Section 308 read with 1.14 of lpC. Accuse I No.6 helped accused Nos.1 to 5 in avoiding arrest. Thus charge,,heet was filed agarnst him under Section 202 of the lpC. A l,erusal of the cognizance order passed by the Magistrate court rr veals that the Magistrate has passed cognizance order which is as I rder:_ '(zors)q scc eog ' 1zooa1 rz scc tsz { 5 EID,I C.|.P.No.14991 2025 "Ihis case is taken on file U/5ec.304(ii), 338 and 201 of IPC and Secfions 184, 185, 187 r/w 205 of MV Act against 41 , for offence under section 308 r/w 1 1 4 of IPC against A2 to A5, for offence under section 202 of lPC. Registered as PRC.514/2024. lssue surnrnonses to 41 to 46. Call on 16.12.2024. Sd/-XVII ACJM

512.2024" 12 The cognizance order does not speak about offence under Section 202 oI the IPC against accused No.6, but summons are issued to accused Nos.1 to 6. Further, the order of cognizance dated

09.07.2025 by the Sessions Court reads as under:- .,COGNIZANCE ORDER DATED 09.07 .2025 Registered as Sesslons Case Made over to lV Additional Hyderabad. Call on 02.09.2025. No.394 of 2025. Sessions Judge, , , sd/- Sessions Judge, Hyderabad."

13. ln the earlier instance Crl.P.No.13899 of 2025 filed by accused No.4 in the same crime, was allowed. Thus applying the same analogy, this petition is also allowed

14. ln the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The cognizance order dated 09.07.2025 passed in SC No.394 of 2025 by the 6 ETD,] CrlP.No 14991 2025 Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, including the cogniza rce order dated

05.12.2024 in PRC No.514 of 2024 passed by t re learned XVll Additional Chief Judicial ttlagistrate, Hyderabad. are hereby set aside and the matter ls remanded with a directic r to the learned tt/lagistrate to pass a reasoned order in accordance v ith law. 15 fi/liscellaneous applications pending, if any, sl i ll stand closed //TRUE COPY// SO/. HUSSAIN ALI ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR a iiECTION OFFICER To

1. The lVAdditional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. 2. The XVlt Additionat Chief Judiciat Magistrate, at Hyderabe j. 3. The Station House Officer, Jubilee Hills police Station, Hyc -.rabad. 4. Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, High court for the state )f rerangana, at 5. One CC to SRt. MUI\/MANEN| SR|N|VASA RAO, Advocat r [OpUC] 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] PrlPSL v t. Bb. -.o., . HIGH COURT DATED: 1711112025 ORDER CRLP.No.14991 ot 2025 / /'.. .-: ,) '.), .' \,i :. ]: 04 HC Iiifi ,,/ ALLOWING THE CRL.PETITION { tl\r