CRLP/16641/2026 of Smt. Donda Mamatha Vs The State of Telangana on 8 October 2026

ORDER

'I'his Crirninal Pctition has bcen tiled by the petitioncrs/accusccl Nos.3 to 7 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. l5l4 o1-2026 on the file o1' the learned VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabd at Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Heard Mr.V.Ram Mohan Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor tbr respondent No. I

3. With tlrt- consc-nt ot' both the learncd counscl. the crirlinal petition is disposed ol at the admission stage on the ground that even according to rhe leamed counsel for the petitioners, the matter before the learned trial Court has not yet ripened for the trial. In view ofthe same, notice in respect of respondent No.2ldefacto complainant is dispensed rvith

4. During the course of hearing, leamed counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the learned Magistrate, without recording satisfaction, has taken cognizance against the petitioners and issued summons mechanically and passed cryptic docket order. Therefore, the docket order passed by the leamed Magistrate is liable to be quashed.

5. Learnecl Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submissions rnade b1' the leamed counsel lor the petitioners.

6. Having considered the submissions made by the respective parties and afler perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the leamed Magistrate has taken cognizance, without recording satisf'action against the accused and not against the offences, through docket order.

7. lt is very much relevant to mention lhat in Sunil Bhorati Mittal v. Central Bureau of I nvestigatioar the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order of issuing process to accused to face criminal trial is a serious issue. Such sumnroning cannot be done on merc asking and the Court has to record reasons for summoning a person. ln GHCL Employees Stock Oprion Trusl v. India Infotine Limitei, the Hon'ble Apex Court found fault with the order of the Magistrate in issuing summons when the Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction about the prima facie case against the accused. ln Chief Enforcemnel Officer v, Vitleocon Inlernotional Limitui, 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 respect to Court or a Judge initiating 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 Supremc Court in Sunil Bhorali Mittnl's cose (Supro), lurther held as lollows: "Sine Qua Non for toking cognizance oJ the olfence is the applicutian of mind by the Magistrute and his satisJaclion that the allegations, iJ proved. -\

' (2015) 4 scc 609 ' (2013) 4 scc so5 ' 1zooal z scc +sz

\toltll LoD.\tittrtt un offenLe. lt is, thereJimt, imperutive thal on a contploinl or on u poli.c report. the Mqgistrute is bound lo consider the que:;lion as lo whelher the same disclose.s conmission of an offence and is required to.fornt such an opinion in lhis respect. llhen he does so and decides to issue process. he shall be said to have taken cognizance. At lhe stage of taking cognizance, the only consideration belore the Court rcmain.t to consider judiciously whether the malerial on which the prosecution proposes to prosecute the occused brings out o prima.facie tuse or fiot. "

8. ln Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of [Jttaronchal antl anothera, it is held as lollows: ' \ttcrthclc.st. it i.t rcll .\atlled thot belire u !l4ugislrctte LLtn be rcritl to huv takcn Logniautrce of un oflence. it i,\ inperutive that ha ntust hutc luken notice of the accu,tdlions and upplied hi.s mind lo the allegations made in the complain! or in the police report or the informati<tn received from a source other lhan a police report, as lhe tose no.r be. and the material fled therewith. lt needs little emphasis that it is onl.v when rhe Magistrate applies his mind and is satisrted lhot rhe ollepiations. if proved, would conslitute an offence and decides to initiqte proceeding:i agoinst lhe alleged offender. lhul il can be positivelv- .\tale(l thot he has taken cognizance oJ the oflence. C'ogytizunce is itt regard ro the ofence and nor the offender. "

9. In vie',r ol the observations and directions of the Hon'ble Suprenrc Cor.rrt in the.ludgrnents relerred to supra, the act of issuing process o1'sumrnoning the accused to lace criminal trial is a serious issue and such orders directing summons to a person to face criminal trial cannot be on the basis ol cryptic orders and it should be an order reflecting application of mind by the Presiding Officer while taking cognizance and issuing process. _:_ " (2008) 17 sCC 157

J

10. For the fbregoing reasons and in view ol' the principles Iaid down by' the Ilon'ble Apex Courr in the judgnrents cited supru, 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. The leamed Magistrate is directed to take cognizance afresh and to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law. I l. Accordingly, the crirninal petition is disposed ot. Pending misccllaneous applications. i1'any. shall stand closcd. SD/- B REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC FFICER /k" To, AB l.TheVllAdditionaltvletropolitanMagistrate,CyberabadatHayathnagar, Ranga ReddY District

2. Theltation House Officer, Vanasthalipuram police station, Rachakonda

5. r*o ccs to public prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri V Ram Mohan Reddy, Advocate IOPUC]

5. Two CD CoPies a a--

HIGH COURT DATED: 08/10/2026

ORDER

CRLP.No.16641 ot 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION 'q 1? ocl C A1

* l)P8

STAre gE g lcr) l* I'bt rs