CRLP/16043/2026 of Syed Salar @ Sayyad Salar Vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA on 30 September 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioneri accused, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2S of 2026 on the fi1e of the I AddiLional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Juclicial Magistrate of First Class at Vikarabad District. resistered for the of-fences punishable under Sections 329(3) and 324(5) ol the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

2. Heard NIr. S.M.Saifullah. learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr..tithendal Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional public prosccutor 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 learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter before the learned Trial Court has not riped for the trial yet. In view of the same, notice in respect of respondent No.2ldefacto complainant is dispensed with

4. Upon perusal of the record, it reveals that the leamed Magistrate, without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons, has taken cognizance against the petitioner and issued summons mechanically and passed cryptic docket order. Therefore, cognizance order passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be quashed

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

6. Having considered the submissions made by the re spective parlies and aftel perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the learned N{agistrate has taken cognizance, without recording satislaction and without assigning any reasons against the accused and ncr against tiie 61lences, through the cognizance order.

7. It is very'much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Miaal v. Central Bureau of Investigatiorr the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order ol issuing process to accused to face crimrnal trial is a serous issrte. Such srrmmoning cannot be done on [iere asking and the Court has to record reasons for summoning a persoil. ln GHCL Emplovees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Limitet, the Hon'ble Apex Court found fault with the order of thc N{agistrate in issuing summons when the Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction about the prima facie case against the accused. ln Chief EnJbrcemnet Officer v. Videocon International Limitetl3. the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the expression .cognizance' held that in criminal law 'cognizance' means becoming aware of and the rvord used r,''ith respect to Coufi or a Judge initiating proceedings in respect ofan olfence. Taking cognizance rvould involve application of mind by the Magistrate to the suspected commission of an oft-ence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharati Mittal's case (Supra), furlher held as 1bllor,,,s: ' Sine 1)ua ,\on./ltr tuking <:ognizunce of thc olfence is the upltlicct;i<tn ol. ntntl br ilte -\[ttgi.:rruk antl hissutisJottion thqt the altegutiois yf fn,vea 'lzors; + scc oos ':1zor:; + scc sos I lzoos; z scc +oz would constitute qn olfence. It is, therefore, imperative tltdl on (t contplulnl or on a police report, the Magistrqte ts bouncl to consider the qLtestion qs to vhether the some discloses commissiofi of an ttffence and is required to form such an optnictn i this respect. Wen he does so and decides Lo issue process, he shall be said to have taken cognizance At the slqge of taking cogntzance, the only considerution before the Court remains to consider judicictusly whether the nuteriol on which the prosecution proposes to prosecute the eccused brings out a pnma facie case or not. " ln Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of (lttaranchal and anothera, it is held as follows: "Nevertheless, it is well settled thot be/bre a Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizunce of an oflbnce, it ts imperative that he must huve taken notice q/ the dccusations ancl applied his mind to the allegtttions motle in the complctint or in the police reporL or the infitrntation received.from a source other than q police report, os the cdse may be, ancl the materrul Jiled therewith. It need,s little emphatis thqt it is onb) tthen the Magistrote applies his mind and is :atisrted thqt the allegalions, Lf proved, \toLtld constitute an olfence ttncl decides to initiate proceedings against the olleged olfender, that can be positively stated ther he has tuken cognizance of the olfence. Cognizance is in regard to the ollence and not the olfender. "

9. In view of the observations and directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments refeffed to supra, the act of issuing process of summoning the accused to face criminai 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 o (2008) 17 scc 157

To, 1t). For the foregoing reasons and in view of the principles laid dc,wn by the I'lon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra, and without going into the other grounds, this Court is of the considered vierv that the cognizance order is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. The learned Magistrate is directed to take cognizance afresh anC to proceed *'ith the matter, in accordance w'ith lau 1 L Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of Pending rniscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- K. BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYi/ SECTION OFFICER 1 The I Addl. Junior Civil Judge - Cum- Addl Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Vil.rarabad District, Vikarabad 2 The Station House Officer, Dharur Police Station, Vikarabad 3 Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hvderabad [OUT] 4 One CC to Sri S Ir4 Saifullah, Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies AtsK, G\I'. q.

HIGH COURT DATED: 3010912026

ORDER

CRLP.No.16043 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION ( 5IATE O,c $t\ 1\1t r{ c EsPtr ':a= (', , ]'i; (I)o ,,r) $q co@ V* I qf6ru