The High Court · 2025

Smt. Chintala Leelavathi, W/o. Chintala Pradeep Kumar, Aged about 41 Years, Occ. Pvt. Employee, R/o. H.No.1-2-101, Chinna Thokatta New I Bowenpally, Secunderabad ...RespondenUComplainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS Act, 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Call for lhe records in connection with the SC No. 394 o'f 2025 on the file of the lV Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, including Cognizance orders d1d.09.07.2025 passed in SC. No. 394 of 2025 by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad registered under section 308 Rr/w.1'14, 202 of lPC, and including Cognizance orders dtd.05.12.2024 in PRC. No.514 of 2024 passed by the XVll Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered under sections 308 R/w.'1 14, 202 of lPC, and quash the same. l LA. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS Act, 2023 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 conneclion with S.C.No.394 of 2025 on the file of the lV Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, r] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEt ANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA Dl: /t EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.17668 of 20:2 ; DATE OF ORDER-29.12.2025 Between: Kum.Annavarapu Nagashree Vaishnavi, D/o A.Rambabu, Ri/o.Hyderabad & 3 others AND The State of Telangana rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad & another. ... Petitioners . . Respondents ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitiorrr rs seeking to quash the cognizance order dated 09.O7.2025 passe j in S.C.No.394 of 2025, on the file of the learned lV Additional Sr ssions Judge, Hyderabad, registered under Section 308 read with 114 and 202 ot lPC, including the cognizance order dated 05.12.1024 in pRC No.514 of 2024 passed by the learned XVll Additionrr Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered under Sections 308 read with 1.,l4 and2O2 of lPC.

2. Heard arguments submitted by Sri J.Srinivas, l3 trned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Jitender Rao \r eramalla. the 2 X learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1 - State.

3. The learned petitioners' counsel has submitted that the cognizance orders are mechanically passed by the learned XVll Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad and also on being committed to the Court of Sessions, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, has passed the cognizance orders in a mechanical manner. He therefore .prayed to quash both the orders and to remand the matter to the trial Court for reconsideration of the said matter

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that appropriate orders may be passed in this case in accordance with Iaw.

5. Perused the record. The record discloses that the petitioners herein are thd accused Nos.2, 3,5 & 6 in PRC No.514 of 2024 and SC No.394 of 2025. The allegations in the charge sheet point out that while accused No.1 was driving the Verna car bearing No.TS- 08/JN-6663 in drunken condition, accused Nos.2 to 5 had encouraged him to drive the car in drunken state. As a result, when the car reached near Swadeshi 'Y' Junction, Road No.36, Jubilee Hills at about 5.00 hours, it got hit the motorbike from its back side, ) due to which, the brother of the defacto complainant c ed on the spot with grievous injuries while the other person received rjuries. 6' The Trial Court, on receiving the charge sheet ras taken it on its file as PRC for the offences under Sections 304(ii r, 338, 308 read with 114 of lPC, 2o1 and 202 of tPC and Sections tB4, 1As, 187 read with 205 of M.V Act against accused Nos.'l tr 6 and issued summons. 7 ' The office note is put up by the staff and the I lagistrate has simply signed the said cognizance order without , rssigning any reason for taking cognizance. lt is contended by :l e petitioners, counsel that the Trial Court ought to have assigne j reasons that "prima facie the Court could make out the commission , ,f offence and thus, the summons are issued,, without which the .e would be violation of mandatory provision under Cr.p.C. 8' lssuance of summons is not a mechanical coursr of action but it requires application of mind by the Magistrate to de :ide whether there is any prima facie case against the accused fo issuance of sumrnons

9. The petitioners' counsel has relied upon the ord: s passed by this Court in Criminal petition No.7656 of 2025, dalel 24.07.2025: i&, \ 4 t Crl.P.No.13899 ot 2025 daled 27.10.2025 and Crl.R.C.No.816 of 2023, daled 16.12.2023 and the said petitions were allowed quashing the cognizance order.

10. Learned counsel also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Suni/ Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of lnvestigationl and Fakhruddin Ahmad y. Sfafe of lJttaranchal and anothel. ln the above cited decisions, the Apex Court has held that there should be proper application of mind by the committal Court for taking cognizance and also the Sessions Court has to assign reasons for taking cognizance of the offences. ln the present case, there are no such reasons assigned while issuing summons to the accused by the XVll Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad and the order is very cryptic.

11. It is pertinent to note that the charge sheet was filed under Sections 304(ii),308, 338, 114, 201 &2}2of IPC and Sections 184, 185, 187 read with 205 of M.V Act against accused Nos.1 to 6. A perusal of the cognizance order passed by the Magistrate Court reveals that the Magistrate has passed cognizance order which is as under:- ' 1zors1 a scc oos '(zoos) rz scc rsz "This case is taken on file U/5ec.304(ii), 338 and :tr IPC and Secllons 184, 185, 187 r/w 205 of Mt against A1 , for offence under section 308 r/w 1 1 IPC against A2 to A5, for offence under section 2( lPC. Registered as PRC.514/2024. lssue summot to A1 to A6. Call on 16.12.2024. '1 of Act 2of Sd/-XVtt I t :JM

5.1 2.1'l 12. No reasons are assigned by the Magistrat 24" r for taking cognizance. Further, the order of cognizance dated l) t.07.2025 by the Sessions Court reads as under:- .,COGN IZANCE ORDER DATED 09 .07.2025 Registered as Sesslons Case Made over to lV Additional Hyderabad. Call on 02.09.2025. No.394 of 20 >.5. Sesslons Jurl re, {l y_ Sessions Juc 1 e, Hyderabil 1."

13. This Court does not want to interfere into the p: vers of the Magistrate Court and the Sessions Court in taking cogn: ance of the I t offence. But assigning reasons for doing the same is rrrr uired whire passing such orders. prima facie satisfaction for taking ;ognizance ought to have been recorded by the concerned Courts r rhile taking 6 cognizance. Therefore, the cognizance orders are liable to be set

14. ln the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The cognizance order dated 09.07.2025 passed in S.C No.394 of 2025 by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, including the cognizance order dated 05.12.2024 in PRC No.514 of 2024 passed by the learned XVll Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded with a direction to the learned Magistrate to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

15. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed Sd/. N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The XVll Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. ' (Call for Records)

2. The Station House Officer, Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of 4. One CC to Mr. J. SRINIVAS, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] HIGH COURT DATED: 2911212025 ORDER CRLP.No.17668 of 2025 k o O t i iAir 2026 0 ,k l)i - ;1: )i.,---::/ Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is I,llowed. ) le,b'