CRLP/15187/2026 of Guda Upendhar Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana, on 5 October 2026

ORDER

l'his Criminal Petition has been liled by the pet it ioners/acc used Nos.l to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.5l of 2026 on the file of the Ieamed Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon.

2. Heard Mr.Atta Abhinandan Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla. leamed Additional Public Prosecutor fbr rcspondcnt No. I l. With the consent of both the learned counsel, the criminal petition is disposed of at the admission stage on the ground that even according to the learned 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 cornplainant is dispensed u'ith

4. During the course of hearing. leamed counsel for the petitioners. submitted that the leamed Magistrate, without recording satislaction, has taken cognizance against the petitioners and issued summons mechanically and passed pryptic 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 madc bt' the leamed counsel for the petitioners.

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

t--

7. It is very much relevant to rnention that in Sunil Bharati Mittul v. Central Bureau of Investigatiozr the Hon'ble Suprenre 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 Limitei, the IIon'ble Apex Court found lault with the order of the Magistrate in issuing summons when the Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction about the prima lacie case against the accused. ln Chief Enforcemnet Officer v. Vitleocon International Limitedt. 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 ofan offence. 'faking cognizance would involve application of mind by the Magistrate to the suspected comrrission ol an oU'encc. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bhormi Mittal's case (Supra), lurther held as follows: ''Sine Quo Non for taking cognizance of the oflence is the applicotion of mind by lhe Magistrate ond his sotisfaclion thql the allegations, if proved, ' (2015) 4 scc 609 'z qzor31 + scc sos I (2008) 2 scc 492

v,ould conslittle an offence It is, therefore, inperative thql on a tontJtlLrinl or on t yiite rcprtt lhc Mugrstrute i.s hound lo con'icler lhc rlu(,\tit)u Lt\ tt) \t lt('llt('t' llt' suut' Lliv'lttvs (ottttlti\\it)tt rtf utt offanta und i.s rLtlt rttl tt lrtrtrt .ttrtlt tut ()pint()tt in thi-.' rcspetl- ll'hctt hc doet vt,tttd lrtrics to ittut ltrrrc:s. lta.:holl hc suil kt hutc tukcn cttSlti:uncc At the .\tuga of tuking utgni:urtca. lhe onlv considerLtlion beJitre th,' Oourt remuin.v rrt ( on.\ider Judiciously whether the material on which the proseculion prapose,\ lo prosecute lhe accused brings out o prinru lacie ca.te or not. In Fokhrudtlin Ahmad v. Slale of {lttaranchal and anolhera, it is he ld as lollows: 'Neterlhelctt. it is v'ell setlled lhat be/ore a Mugisrrate can be vid to htttt, lukctl ..ogni:ctnc( of un offt'nte. it i.\ imPeruliw /hql he mu\l Itt r-c ttrkcrt nrttitt' of llt( uL.'u.\ulio11.\ uncl ultplittl hi.s ntind ttt lhc rrllcgtrtrott' tttLtlt' itt lltL' cotttltluittt'or iD lh! l,liLc rcl)ort ')r lhr infornnrtirtt rt,t-LitcLl front tt .tourt'c olhcr thun u policc rePorl. d\ Iha c.u.\a mul ba urul tha uruteriul lilad there*ilh. lt neetl.s little enphusi.s thdt it is onl) t hen rhe lvlogistrote applies his mind and is satisii('d that the ollegulion.s, i.f proved. would conslitute an offence and decides lo initiate proceadings agamsl the olleged olfender, that can be posilively stated that hc hqs taken cognizance of the offence. Cognizance is in regur,T to thc o/fence qnd nol lha oflbnder. "

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 lace criminal trial ls a senous ISSUC and such ordcrs directing summons to a person to f'ace'criminal rrial cannot be on the basis olcryptic orders and it should be an order retlecting application o1'mind by the Presiding Officer while taking cognizance and issuing Process. o (2008) 17 scc 157

-

To, AV

10. For the fbregoing 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 accordance with law I l. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of Pending miscellaneous applications, ifany, shall stand closed SD/- K. BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principle Judicial First-Class Magistrate, at Jangaon

2. The Station House Officer, Jangoan Police Station, Warangal

3. One CC to SRl. ATLA ABHINANDHAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies ADK/BA

HIGH COURT DATED: 0511012026

ORDER

CRLP.No.15187 ot 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRLP 14: TA lHE S 0[T E

a. :-*. r).'- \i ,\ ( o * m

-*-o ic \b \t 1b 6, P4i r .':,]H