CRLP/16487/2026 of Kasarla Pramod Vs The State of Telangana on 7 October 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the pet itioner/accused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. I 527 of 201 9 on the file of the leamed Judicial Magistrate of F irst (--lass at Bhongiri, Yadadri Bhongir District

2. Heard Mr.CH.Siddi Ramulu, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla. learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l

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 lor the petitioner, the matter betbre the learnccl trial ('ourr has not yet ripened for the trial. In view of the respect of respondent ilo?lde[acto complainant is same. notlcc ln dispensed with During the course ol hearing, Iearned counsel lor the petitioner, submitted that thc learncd Magistrate, without recording satistaction, has taken cognizance against the petitioner and issued summons rnechanicallr and passed cr-"-ptic docket order. Therefore, the docket order passcd b1 tlrc learned Nlagistratc is liable to be quashed

5. Leamcd Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submissions made b1'the leamed counsel for the petitioner.

6. tJar ing considered the submissions made by the respective parties and atter perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that thr' learned Magistratc has taken cognizance, without recording satisl'action ar.:.ainst the accr.rsed and t.tot against the ofl'ences, through docket order.

--7

7. It is very much relevanr to mention that in Sunil Bhorati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Invesligalion I the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order of issuing process to accused to face criminar 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 Infbline l_imirci. the Hon'ble Apex Coun lbund fault with the ordcr of thc Magistrare in issuing summons when the Magistrate has not recorded his satist'action about the prima facie case against the accused. rn Chief Enforcemnet ofJicer v. videocon Inrernationar Limited, rhe 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 ofan oflence. Taking cognizance would involve application of mind by the Magistrate to the suspected cornmission of an offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bhorari Mittal,s case (Supra), further held as follows: 'Stne .Quu Non fbr tuktng cogtti:unce of the o/Icn<.c i.\ thc (4)plic(ttu)tl o/ nind by the Magi.strata ctnd hi.s.tutisfaction thtrt thc ollegcrtions i/ provecl, ' (201s) 4 scc 609 '(2013) 4 scc 5os r (2oo8) 2 scc 492

roul(l c'on\litula on affence. lt is therelore imperalive lhal on o :'onplutttt t)r on d poli.e r(porl, the ,Vugtstrute is hound to consider the qtrcstiotl u.\ lo \hclher lhe sune discloses commisrion of an o-fence and is rtquired ta f'rtrm such un opinion in thi.\ respect. llhen he does so and ,l,,cttlcs lo issue procesr he.shqll he said lo hctve tuken cogni:ance. Al lhe \ttgr ol tokinF iogtli:onL(. thL, onlt con.siderttnn befor,' lha Courl lttnttilr to cottstdat' ttrtlttioutlt thather the nrutcriul ol vhith tha t)tt)\tt ltlit)t) l)tt)l)t)\(\ lt) l)rt).\tt:ltl(' llt,: ttt'c'ttsatl hring.s oLrt u prinu fitcic In F'akhruddin Ahmad v. State of lJttaranchal und anothera , it is held as f ollows .\ r,r'cr/hr1es s, rt is vtell settled lhol before t Magistrale can he :ail to hut e tukrn cognizonce o/ un olfence. it is inperalive lhdl he nlusl havc lokcn nrtice of tha dccusalions and appliecl his tnind to the t ltgcttion: mutle in the complaint or in the police reporl or the tnfrtrntrttott retL'itttl frou cr .source olher than u police reporl, as the .(t\t,fikt\ hc utttl tlI ntuteriul filecl lherc*ilh. It ntels lltle entphu.si.s rhrrt tt tt ,tttl.,, rrhcn tlta ,\ltgistrute upplies his ntind qnd i.s.satisJied thut tht Ltl/t,:trriortt. il lrt)\L'l toLtlLl cottstitutc trrt of/ince orul decidas to l lkltt /)t't)Lt(tlt)1g\ tt{LlD\l lltt,rllegLtl olfL'r ar thLtt il aun be Po\illIal\ ,lLtl,'(l titLtt h lttlr lLtkcn togtti.onct rt/ the offLttca. ( ctgni:tttttr' i.t irt ragrrxl l,t the ol/encc untl rutt lhc of/ent)er. "

9. In r iew of the observations and directions of the Hon'ble Suprerne Court in the judgments referred to supra, the act of issuing process of sunrrnoning the accused to face criminal trial is a serious issue and such orders directing summons to a person to face criminal trial cannot be on the basis olcrvptic orders and it should be an order rellccting application ol mind b-"" the Presiding Olficer while taking cognizance an(l issu ing Process o (2008) 17 scc 157

--- To

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 tiable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. The leamed Magistrate is directed to take cognizance afiesh and to proceed with the matter, in accordance u'ith law' I l. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/.1 VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// SECTI N OFFICER

1. The Judicial First Class lVagistrate at Bhongir' Yadadri Bhongir District

2. The Station House Officer, Bhongir Rural Pollce Station, Yadadri, Bhongir Distflct.

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

4. One CC to Sri. Ch. Siddiramulu, Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CD Copies Pr/ABK

HIGH COURT DATED: 0711012026

ORDER

CRLP.No.16487 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION 1t\ .c S I'ATF ot- k oo 11 ocl p0 ..q .* D