CRLP/16111/2026 of Haseeb Ahmed Qureshi @ Haseeb uddin Ahmed Qureshi Vs State of Telengana on 1 October 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.869 of 2021 on the file of the XV Additionai Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act' r961.

2. Heard Mr. B. Jagadish, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithendar Rao veeramalla, ieamed Additional Public Prosecutor lor respondent \o.l .

'4. Upon perusal of the record, it reveals that the leamed

3. With the consent "of both the learned counsel. the criminal petrti,rn is disposed of at the admission stage on the grouncl that even according to the learned counsel for the petitioners. the matter before the lear ned Trial Court has not riped lbr the tnal yet. In view of the same. notice in respecl of respondent No.2ldefacto complainant is drspensed rriith Mag slrate, withoul recording satisfaction and without assignine anr. reasons. has taken cognizance against the petitioners and issued rlechanically and passed cryptic docket ordel by using s uminons rubber starnp. Therefore, cognizance order passed by the learned Nlagistrate is liable to be quashed

5. Learncd Additional Public Prosecutor has not ooposed the subr-rissions made blr thc learned counsel for the petitioners

6. Har -ns considered the subn-rissions made b1, the respectir..e partres and after pcrusal of the material available on record. it reveals that the leamecl Vagistrate has taken cognizance, w.jLhout recording sati:factio, and * ithout assigning an).reasons against the accusccl and noL ilsainsl the ot'tences, through the cognizance order.

J 7 . It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigationr the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order of issuing process to accused to face criminai trial is a serious issue. Such summoning cannot be done on mere asking and the Court has to record reasons for summoning a person. \n 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 Chief Enforcemnet Officer v. Videocon International Limiteds, the Hon'b1e 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 Supreme Court in Sunil Bhurati Mittal's case (Supra), further held as foliows: "Sine Q,ua Non for taking cr.tgnizance of the offtnce u the appliccttic.tn of mind by the vhgistrote an(l his sL isfaction that the ullegarions, if pro','ed ' (201s) 4 scc 609 21zot3; + scc sos 3 (2008) 2 scc 492

\tould constinttc .tn ollence. It i';, therefore, imperalt\)c tllqt on a complrtint or ctn a police report, thc -lfagistratc is bouncl to cottsicler the (lucstion (IS to whethcr the same clisc loses commission of un ofj'ence ancl r retluirecl tc.t forrn such an opinion tn this respect. ll/hen he does .;o und derides ro i.tstrc process, he shall be said b have taken cctgnizttnce. At the -i/.r.g( ol tuking cognizutce, the anllt consideratlon before the Court rentaitts to Ltnsider judicLoLt.\ly \rhether the materiol on y,hi::h the prt).\taltlion proposc.\ to prosecute tlte uccused brings on a _orimt facie cdtsc or flat. "

8. In F-akhruddin Ahmad y. Stste of Unaranchal antl anothera, it is held as lbllows '.\evt,rthelass, it is vall settled thatt beftre a Magisnttte can be sttid to huvt tukn cognizance of an ollence, it is imperah,,e thu lte must Itttt t' tukcn notice of the acctrscttions and applied ht tnind to the ullcgtttkttrs nade in the contpldint or in the police report or the infbrntati,tn r,ceied frum a sour(e other thun a police report, us the co.\( n(ry' bt. cmd the material Jiled therewith. It needs litrlt eruphasis thqt it is ,nh vJten the :Vagistrate upplies his mincl and t.t sLttis.fled that the allegation;, iJ provecl, would consttute un olfence unLl dec'ides tct inirtctte procecdings ugoinst the alleged ollender, that it con be pctsitielt stutcd thtt hc has taken cognizonce oJ the offence. CognizunL:e u in ragortl ro thc o\fencc and nor the offender. "

9. ln view o1' the observations and directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in the judgments referred to supra, the act ol issuing process of summoning the accused to face criminal trial is a serious issue and such orders directing summons to a person to flrce crirninal trial cannot be on the basis of cryptic orders and it should be an order reflecting appLicarion of mind b1' the Presiding Officer \vhile taking cognizance and issuing process '(2C08) 17 SCC 1s7

10. For the foregoing reasons and in view of thc 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 1iab1e 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 1. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, ifany, shall stand closed. SD/- P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1 The XV Addl Chief Judicial lVlagistrate at Hyderabad.

2. The Station House Officer, WPS South Zone, Hyderabad 3 Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 4 One CC to SRI B JAGADISH Advocate IOPUC] 5 Two CD Copies TPK/GNK Yk To,

HIGH COURT DATED: 0111012026

ORDER

CRLP.No.16111 of 2026 1 ylE sT47e' ( o (") 0 g 0cT 2026 ( t)i __ -;:/ CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF coP(el> g VI- 4S,' t \j-_-