CRLP/15995/2026 of Amina Vs The State of Telangana on 30 September 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been frled by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2968 of 2025 on the file of the learned Il Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Additional Judicial Nlagistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally

2. Heard Mr.Mohd. Islamuddin Ansari, leamed counsel for the petrtioner and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, iearned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1

3. ---1y;11., the consent of both the leamed counsel, the criminal petrtion is disposed of at the admission stage on the ground that even according to the leamed counsel for the petitioner, the matter before the leamed trial Court has not yet ripened for the trial' In view of the same, notice in respect of respondent No '2ldefacto complainant is dispensed with.

4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner' submittedthattheleamedMagistrate,withoutrecordingsatisfaction, has taken cognizance against the petitioner and issued summons mechanically and passed cryptic docket order' Therefbre' the docket order passed by the leamed Magistrate is liable to be quashed'

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

6. Having considered the submissions made by the respectlve 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

7 . It is very much reievant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation I the Hon'ble Supreme 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 Entployees Stock Option Trust v. India Infotine Limftert, the Hon'ble ,A.pex Court found fault with the order of the Magistrate in issrring summons when the Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction about the prima facie case against the accused. ln Chief Enforcemnet Officer v. Videocon International Limiled, 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 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 c'ase (Supra), further held as follows: "Sine Qua Non for taking cognizo ce of the olfence is the upphcation of mind by the Magistrate and his sutisfaction thqt the allegotictns,;lfproted, '(2115) 4 scc 609 'z 1z,lr31 + scc 5os 3 1zooel z scc +sz woul(l Constitute qn offence' It is, lherefore, itnperative thql on tl c.tmplainr or t)n o police r(port' th; Ma;isi'ato i' bu'nd rc ansider the Z"*'i,',iir'r''ro'h'ih"th"o*:;i;.::i:""::;::'"ir;{:'r:+:;':^:;) )equiretl to form *'h :',::'::i, be said to have taken cognizance. At the i: :'!:' ": f ';li : { 7i iil ; !,", i*,1 i i " ")i ; ;: ; ; ;;, ;,; ; ; ; 9 i1' *', 1 ; c " " n "ili),,i ,"'|i^iai, juai'i"u'-tt',n*i"':';,:!; i;i;:;'',:r|: ri!;:,';.!',i prosecution Pro?oses to ProsecL case or not."

ln Fakhruddin Ahrnuil v. state of uttaranchal and anothera ' it is held as follows: "Nevertheless' it ts well settled"thor befor: a M:'C:nmte can be said to have toknn ,og,i,u,J"'-of an uffe,ce, i,i is impemtiu^e thd't he must have taken notice of t#'' "'ki"'i'"" "'a o7rt';'!,, '!^it mind to the ' r t tL"r," ii' mad e i n.' ;; ;; ;;;;: " .','; -:, r'! : ::':i,ir' :!;::, " :r',0,i infoTmation receiwd from Ll sourcc ol er tttutt tt Pwt'\ \ ,iru ^uy be and the "'*''i'iia therewirh' h n'eedr' little empha'is tha ir is ontv uhen rhe ;i;';;';;j;;!i:.: ,:''-:':,lr::!';;;';:!:i'r"::'; the attegations,, if f,"l!,i,,i,i!'Xuil!)",if""ii,ii,, ,i,an be postt*ety. initiate Pr o c e edings a gat ',i"i i'i n" hi' tikn''- 'u'gn'anle of rhe 'sffenc'e ' Cognizance u tn regard to the oJJence and not the offentler' " g. In view of the observations and directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Coufi 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 triai 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 4 (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 vierv 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 1aw. 1 1. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dlsposed of. Pending miscelianeous applications, if any, shail stand closed SD/-C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER

1. The ll Additional Junior Civil Judge -Cum X Addl. Judicial I\4agistrate of First Class Rangareddy District at Kukatpally

2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Gachibowli, Cyberabad. 3 Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana, at llyderabad [OUT] 4 One CC to SRl. TMOHD ISLAIVUDDIN ANSARI Advocate IOPUC] 5 Two CD Copies TPK/GNK

HIGH COURT DATED: 3010912026

ORDER

GRLP.No.15995 of 2026 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF p\46 01 oslE26 oA a C: I S1AI€ DF$rrA1 -\' t (^+ 'l oJ o