The High Court · 2025

The state of relangana, through s.H.o., Vikarabad porice station, vikarabad District,, rep. by State Public prosecutor, Higfr Court, Hyderab;d- ' - ---- Smt.. T€lari-Prabhavathi, w/o Jagan, aged 3g years, Occ. Housewife, F/o Block No.16 Room No.3, Rajeeigruha-katpa, Vit<ardOaO, Vikarabad District ...Respondents/Complainant Petition under section 482 of cr.p.crs2| of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds or ciiminat"petition, the High court may be pleased to call for the records in connection with the cognizance order dtd.29.09.2023, passed in c.c.No.460 ot 2023 on the file of the Judicial First class [Vlagistrate at Vikarabad, Vikarabad District, and quash the same by allowing the above petition. l.A. NO: 2 OF 202s Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal ietition, the High court may be pleased to Stay of arr further proceedings, incruding appea-rance of the Petitioner/Accused in c.c.No.460 of 2023 on ihe rile of the iudicial First class Magistrate at Vikarabad, Vikarabad District, pending disposal of the above criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Mummaneni srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the petitiondr and sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF T'I )LANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENI i/AS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.16811 of 2tl 25 Date: L6.12.2O25 Between: Raipally Sai Krishna AND The State of Telangana, Represented b1, its Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of 'lelangana, At Hyderabad and another ...Petitioner ...1lespondents ORDER: This Crinrinal Petition is hlcd seeking tr quash the proceedings in C.C.No.46O ol 2023, on the file of Iudrcial First Class Magistrate, Vikarabad, whercin the petitioner ,r ls arrayed as accused, registered for the oflences punisl ablc under Sections 354 (D) and 506 of IPC.

2. Heard Mr. Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, Iearn: 1 counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veerart Llla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondcr t No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemer r1. contended that Iearned petrtloner application

29.O9.2023 Magistrate had taken cognizance :rgainst the issued summons mechanicalll. t ven rvithout mind and passed cognizance ;rdcr dated He further submitted that the learnt j Magistrate 2 ought to have taken cognizance against the offence only but not against accused. Therefore, the cognizance order d,ated 29.O9.2023 passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be quashed. Learncd Additional Public prosecutor did not oppose the

4. 5 Notice in respect of respondent No.2 is dispensed with only the ground that petitioner is not seeking any relief against respondent No.2

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance without applying his mind and without assigning any reasons, especially taken cognizance against the accused and not against the offences through cognizance order dated 29.O9.2023.

7. It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittal a. Central Bureau of Inaestigattonr 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 ofr mere asking and the Court has to record reasons for summoning a person. ln GHCL Emplogees Stock Option Trust a. Ind.ia InJoline Limite&, the Hon'ble Apex Court found fau.lt with the order of the Magistrate in issuing "*-_:." when the I (201s) 4 scc 609 (2013) 4 scc sos 'z -------- ./3 Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction about tl e prima facie case against the accused. In Chief Enforcemer t OfJicer a. Videocon Internationat Limite&, the Hon'ble Sr preme court while discussing the expression 'cognizance' held th Lt- in criminal Iaw 'cognizance' means becoming aware of and the rv )rd used with respect to Court or a Judge initiating proceedings r:r rcspect of an offence. Taking cognizance would involve applical.i; r of mind by the Magistrate to the suspected commission of a.r offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharqti Mittal's :ase (Supra), further held as follows: "Sine Qua Non for taking cogni.zance of the ofJbn application of mind bg tl'Le Magistrate and his snti:;1', the allegations, tf proued, LUOuld constitute an oJJ,: therefore, imperatiue Lhot on e cornplcLint or ort a pol the Magistrate is bound to consicler the question a:; 't the same cllscloses commi.sslon of an offence and : to form such an opinion in this respect. When he tl.o, decides to issue process, lrc shctlL be said to hc cognizance. At the stage of tcLking cognizanc<:, consideration before the Court remoins to consider .'r whether the materictl on uhich the prosecuLion p. prosecute the accused brings out a pr[mct fac[e cctsr t In Fakhtttd.din Ahmo.d. u. Sto'te of llttcu anchal o.nd. :t: is the Tion thot .t:e. lt is, :?- repotl, uthether required s so cnd )e token the only diciousLg pose-s fo . nol.. "

8. dnothef , it is'he1d as follows: "Neuertheless, it is utell settled that before o \ can be said to haue token coqnizance of an ofie imperatiue that he must haue taken notice of the ac and applied his mind to Lhe allegations mcrd. complaint or in the police report or the informaticr from o source other than a police report, os the ca:;, and the materlol fi.led thereutth. It needs tittle enty,) it is onlg LDhen the Magistrate applies his mttr satisfied that the allegations, if proued, ulould at t offence and dectdes to initiate proceed_ings oq alleged offender, thot it can be positiueta statecl ttL agLstrate ?ce, if is rrsafions : in the rece[ued mag be, o.sis that I and is titute en inst the '.t he has I t I lzooay z scc +92 ' (2008) 17 scc 157 4 taken-^cognizonce of the offence. Cognizance is in regard to the offence and not the offender. "

9. In view of the observations and directions of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to supra, the act of issuing process of summoning the accused to face criminar 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 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 dated 29.Og.2O2g passed in C.C.No.46O of 2023 on the filc of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vikarabad, is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. However, this order r,r,ill not preclude the learned Magistrate from taking cognizance and passing orders afresh in accordance with law, by giving reasons. 1 1 . Accordingly, the Criminal petition is disposed of Miscellaneous applications, it any, pending sha11 stand closed. "'+,i5ff$iuA:t'SFRiXE //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate' Vikarabad - 2. The Station House otricerlV''k;;;;"Ji;*n Police Station' Vikarabad 3. Two ccs to public pr"Jil;;, H';h-corrt tor tn" state of Telangana at - .= - Hyderabad [OUTI

4. One CC to Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, Advocate [OP - ]l 5. Two CD CoPies ABI(/SA \ HIGH COURT DATED: 1611212025 ORDER CRLP.No.16811 ot 2025 i:! .s(' I .;i "it a. {" 'L ll- & I ! , o ) ..', .J '-:{: ^4\x -.(. il + l'. ':=:-'- j; '' DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETTTION (F 30 Lt aI I I