CRLP/16524/2026 of S. Harikishan Vs The State of Telangana, on 7 October 2026

ORDER

'Ihis Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accu sed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.230 of 2026 on thc file of the leamed Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Vemulawada, Rajanna Sircilla District

2. Heard Mr.K.Venumadhav, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla. learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. I .

3. With the consent of both the leamed counsel, the criminal petition is disposed of at the admission stage on the ground that even \- according to the leamed counsel for the petitioner, the matter before the learned trial Courl has not yet ripened for the trial. In view of the notice in respect of respondent No.2ldefacto complainant is same dispensed with

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

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submissions made by the leamed counsel for the petitioner.

6. I{aving considered the 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. recording satisf'action against the accused and not against the offences, through docket order - J

7. It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittul v. Central Bureau of Investigation I the tlon'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 on mere asking and the Court has to record reasons for summoning a person. In GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Limircd, 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 l'acie case against the accused. ln Chief Enforcemnet Officer v. Videocon International Limircd, 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 of'fencc. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharati Miual's case (Supra), further held as follows: "Sine Qua Non./br toking cognEonce of the olfence is the upplicution oJ' mrnd by the Magislrole und his sotis/octktn thol lhe ollegation.s if proved. ' (2015) 4 SCC 609 'z (2013) 4 scc 505 3 (2008) 2 scc 492

.- v'ould con\titutc an olfence. lt ts. therefore, imperative thot on o complaint or on o police report, the Magistrate is bound to cttnsr,ler the question a.\ to u'helher the same discloses commissrcn ofan offence and is required to fitrnr .strt h un opinion in thi.\ re:tpect. llhe n ha tloes ;o and dccidas to isttt ltrrxcts. lra shull fu .suid to hutc k*cn crtgrti:ttnta At the .stttgu ol ttrkittu togtrr:trrttt' tha onll c'ortsiderulion befita tha ('ourt rcntuiDs |t) trnsilLr ludiLtoL^l.t rhather the Druteri.tl on u,hich the Proseculiot1 propo\a.\ lo proseLute the Ltccused brings out cr primt lucie case or not.

8. In Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal and anothera, it is he ld as follorvs 'Ne|ertlleles.\, tt is well seuled lhat before a Magistrale :an be said to have loken cognizance of an ffince, il is imperalive thol lre must have luken notice of the uccu.\.tlions und applied hr mind lo the ullegutirnrt uutlc itt the conpluint-or in the police rcport or the ittfutrlttrtiott r-LLL'ittr/ fntnt t sour<c other thun u pt icc rcporl-.rs the Lo\c rtt.t ht,. tutd tltc nuteriul /ilad tharevith. lt neecl.s little entphusis thur tt it onlt tt hen lht llug)ttrutc ttpplie.s hi.s nunrl untl i.s .tttti.sJi,:d thut the allcg.rtion.\ if pntvtl, y'ould cortstitule un oflencc ancl decides to initiate proceeelrngs ugainst the alleged ofender. thul it cqn be positivell, sruled lhat he hos taken cognizance of the ofJence. Cogruzanc,: 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 criminal trial is a serious issue and such orders directing summons to a person to lace criminal trial cannot be on the basis olcryptic 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 foregoing reasons and in view of 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 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 accordancc with law. 1 l. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed oL Pending miscellaneous applications, ifany, shall stand closed SD/- K. BHAVANI SWAMY ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1 The Judicial tvlagistrate of First Class at Vemulawada

2. The Station House officer, Vemulawada Town Police Station, Rajanna sircilla District.

3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad IOUT]

4. One CC to Sri K. Venumadhav, Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CD Copies VH/BA To, a

HIGH COURT DATED: 0711012026

ORDER

CRLP.No.16524 ot 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION \1 1$

/< E srA )'€ ? ) acr) 2U20 CT

* t0 @ \6 lb