CRLP/16207/2026 of Varaganti Narsimha, Vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA on 5 October 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.6 and 8 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.24l6 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Vl Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Medipally.

2. Heard Ms.Devarakonda Vandana, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents. Between:

-

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

4. Durinc the course of hearing, leamed counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the learned Magistrate, without recording satisftrction, has taken cognizance against the petitioners and issued sumrrons mechanically and passed cryptic docket order by using rubber stamp. l'herefore. the docket order passed by the leamed Magistrate is liable to be quashed

5. I-earned Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submissions made by the leamed counsel for the petitioners

6. Having considered the submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on rccord, it reveals that the leamed Magistrate has taken cognizance, without recording satisfaction against the accused and not against the ofrences, through dockci order -, a

7. It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bhsrati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigatiozr the Hon'ble Supreme Cout 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. ln GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Limitet, 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 ChieJ' Enforcemnet Of/icer v. Videocon International Limitei, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the expression 'cogtizance' 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 offence. Taking cognizance would involve application of mind by the Magistrate to the suspected commission of an offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharati Mittal's case (Supra), further held as follows: "Sine Qua Non for tuking cognizance of the offence is the applictttion of mind by the Magistrate and his satisfaction that the allegttions, ifproved, 1 (2015) 4 scc 609 ' '(2013) 4 scc 505 ' (2008) 2 scc 492

- w[)ul(l constitute an olfence. It is, therefore, imperotive that on d cotnplttnr or on u police report, the .)[ogistrotc is hound to consider thc question ,:t,\ b whether the same cliscktses commission rsf an offence and is requtreLl b fornt sttch an opinion in thts respect. Wen he does so antl decide.s tct i$ue proclrs, he shull be said to hoye lqken cognizance. At the .\tag( t)f toking cogtli:uncc, the onll consideration before the Court rerntrin.s to consider jucliciousll, whether the materiol ,.tn which the pr()sc.ulion propose:; to proseutta the acctrsed brings out a prima facie

8. ln Fukhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal and anothera, it is hcld as tbllorvs: ".\ercrthcless. ir is v'ell re led thet before a Magistrate cen be suil ut haye taken crtgnizance oJ'un olfence, it is imperative that he must htrvt, lalten notice o.[ the qccltsotions and applied his mind to the allcgarions mude in the complaint or in the police report or the infbrmrttiott rece ed Jrom o source other lhan u police report, us the cusc n1a) be, tnd thc material filed therewith. It needs ltttle emphasis thttl it is only then the Mugistrute applies his nind and is saisrted that the dllegqtion:i. if proved, \rauld constituta an offence and deades to initiute proceedings against the alleged offender, that it tan be positively stotcd thdt he htts tttken cagnizance of the offence. Cognizance is in resdrd to the offence und not tha offender. " 9 . ln vieu, of the observations and directions of the Hon'ble Suprenre 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 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. ' lzooa; n scc 157..

t-

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 learned Magistrate is directed to take cognizance afresh and to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law I 1. Accordingly, the criminai petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, ifany, shall stand closed. SD/. B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Junior civil Judge- cum- Vl Judicial lvlagistrate of First class at tt/ledipally

2. The lll Metropolitan lVlagistrate Court, LB Nagar

3. The Station House Officer, Medipally Polrce Station, Rachakonda

4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, Hrgh Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. One CC to Sri Devarakonda Vandana, Advocate IOPUC] 6 Two CD Copies ABK/GNK ?

HIGH COURT DATED: O5l'1012026

ORDER

CRLP.No.16207 ot 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION ? 1tc- STrtlo ( I 16 0{r rmq ?.\

'a o

''{s)t"ltt