CRLP/16062/2026 of Yadamakanti Madhusudhan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana on 30 September 2026

ORDER

This Criminai Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.1. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.680 of 2022 on the file of the N{etropolitan Magistrate at Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, regislered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 crf the Indian Penal Code, 1860

2. Heard Mr. P. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, leamed Senior Counsel representing Vl. Y. Sai Dev Rohan, leamed counsel fbr the petitioner and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, ieamed Additionai Public .. .Petitioner Prosecutor for respondent No. 1

3. 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 for the petitioner, the matter before the learned Trial Court has not riped for the trial yet and is at the stage of examination of accused. 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 learned Magistrate, rvithout recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons. has taken cognizance against the petitioner and issued summons mechanically and passed cryptic docket order by using rubber stamp. Therefore, cognizance order passed by the learned Magistrate is 1iab1e to be quashed.

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

Having considered the submissions made by the respective parlics and after pcrusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance, rvithout recording satisfactlon and rvithout assigning any reasons against the accused and not against the offences, through the cognizance ordet'.

1. It is ven much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Minal v. Central Bureau of Investigationt the Hon'ble Supr"eme Court held that the order of issuing process to accused to face criminal trial is a senous lssue Such summoning cannot be done on mere asking and the Couft has to record reasons for summoning a person. In GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. Inttia Infoline LtmituE. he Hon'ble Apex Court found fault uith the order of the Magistrate in issuing summons when the Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction about the prima facie case against the accused. In Chief Enforcemnet Officer v. Videocon International Limitedi, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the expression 'cognizance' hetd that in criminal law 'cognizance' means becoming aw.are of and thc',vord used with respect to Courl or a Judge initiating proceedings in rcspect of an off'ence. Taking cognizance would inr olve application of mind by the \{agistrate to the suspected commission of an offence. -fhe Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharati Mittal's case (Supra), further held as lbllows: ' Sint' Qur.' \or lor nking cogniztutce ol'the o/lince is rhe uppl,ulictn of mind \, the tv[ugistrote und ]is scttislicnon thot the ollcgutions, ,f'proted, '(20r5) 4 scc 609 '(2013) 4 scc 5os ' 1zo l8y z scc +sz v)ould can:ititute an olfence. It is, therefore, imperotive that on a cc.tmpltrint or on ct police report, the Magit;trate is bound to consider the question as to whether the same discloses commisston of an ffince and is required to form such on opmion in this respect. I[hen he does so and decides to issue process, he shall be said to have taken cognizance. At the stage of taking cognizance, the only consideration before the Court remains to consider judiciously whether the moterial on which the pro:teculion proposes to prosecule the accused brings out u prima facie case or not. "

8. In Fakhruddin Ahmatl v. Stqte of [Itturanchal and unother{, it is held as foilows: "Nevenheless, it is well settle[l that before a Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an olJbnce, it i:i imperative that he musl have tuken notice of the accusations ancl applied his mind to the allegations made in the complaint or in the police report or the information received front d source other than a police repofi, as the case may be, und the material Jiled therewith. It needs little emphasis that it is only when the Magistrate applies his mind end is satisfiecl that the allegalions, if proved, wotrld constitule an offence and decides to initiate proceedings against the alleged olfender, that it can be positively stated that he has taken cogntzance of the oJJbnce. Cognizance is in regard to the olfence and not the olfender. "

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 face criminal triai is a serious issue and such orders directing summons to a person to lace cdminal 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 1s7

10. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the principles laid dow,n by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra, and without going into the other grounds, this courl is of the considered vie*'that the cognizance order is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. The leamed Magistrate is directed to take cognizance afresh and 1.o proceed with the matter, in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of Pending miscellaneous appiications, if any, shall stand closed SD/- T. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPYi/ SECTION OFFICER

1. The lvletropolitan lVlagistrate at Chevella, Ranga Reddy District

2. The Judicial First Class l\rlagistrate, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District

3. The Station House Officer, Shankerpalli Police Station, Cyberabad

4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 5 One CC to Sri Sai Dev Rohan Yasala, Advocate [OPUC] 6 Two CD Coptes i\BK /GNK To,

HIGH COURT DATED: 301O912026

ORDER

CRLP.No.16062 ol 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION E ST'I€ ( q llB stl 2r2$ (;5 i-- '. :., \, f,r r.--- ''._:_-.\..'-.- I b La ah