CRLP/15890/2026 of Potla Madhava Rao, Vs The State of Telangana, on 29 September 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.l869 of 2026 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate. Khammam.

2. Heard Mr. Bomagani Prabhakar, Iearned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Pu Slic Prosecutor for respondent No. I .

3. With the consent of both the learned counsel. the criminal pelition is disposed of at the admission stage on the ground that even according to the leamed counsel for the petitioner, the matter before - the learned trial Court has not yet ripened for the trial. ln 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, submitted that ths learned Magistrate, without recording satisfaction, has taken cognizance against the petitioner and issued summons mechanically and passed cryptic docket order. Therefore, the docket order passed by the learned Magistrate ls liable to be quashed'

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

6. Having considered the submissions made by the respective parties and after perusai of the matenal available on record, it reveals that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance, without recording satisfaction against the accused and not against the offences, through docket order. l.ItisverymuchrelevanttomentionthatinsunilBharatiMittal v. Central Bureau of I nvestigatioar the Hon'b1e Supreme Court held 1 (2015) 4 scc 609

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 Hon'ble Apex Court found fauit with the order of the N{agistrate 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 Limitef , 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 of an of'fence. Taking cognizance would involve application of rnind by the Magistrate to the suspected commission of an offence. Thc Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharati Mittal,s case (Supra), further held as follows: "Stn1 Qucl Non for taking cognizance of the ofence is the appli:ation of mirul by the Mugistrate and his satisfaclion thqt the allegationr, ifprorni, trould conslitute an offence. It i;, therefore, impeiative tirt o, o compluinr rtr on a pohce report, the Mqgistrqte is bound to consrtler the question us to whether the seme discloses commission of an olfence and is reqtrired to.form such an opinion in this respect. Wen he does so ancl. decides to issue process, he shall be said to have laken cognizunce. At the stuge of tahng cognizance, the only considerotion before the Court '? lzor:; + scc sos 3 lzooey z scc +92

- remdins to consider judiciously whether the material on whrch the prosecution proposes to prosecute the actused brings <.tut a prima facie cqse 0r noL " ln Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Ilttaranchal and anothera, it is held as follows: "Nevertheless, it is well settled that befitre u Magistrale can be saitl to hqve taken cognizonce o;f an offence, it is imPerative th\t he tnust have taken nottce of the accusations and appliecl his mind to the allegatir.tns made in the complatnl or in lhe police report or the information received frttm d source other than .t police report' at the case may be, and the material filed therewth. It needs little emphasis that it $ only when the Magistrate applies his mind und is satisJied that the allegations, if proved, \tould constitute an offence and decides to initiate proceetlings against the alleged offender, lhdt it cqn be positively stated that lte has lakan cognzonce of the ollence Cognizttnce is in regttrcl to the offence and rutt the nffender- "

9. ln 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 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.

10. For the foregoing reasons and ln view of the principles lald 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 o (2008) 17 scc 1s7

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. 1 1. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, ifany, shall stand closed. SD/-C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPYII To, SECTION OFFTCER '1 . The I Additional Judicral First. Class Magistrate at Khammam 2 Ther Station House Offrcer Xn"rrm rjjJJ*-ntori.u Station. Khammam 3 One CC to Mr Bonrmagani prabhakar ';dv;;r," 1OnUC1 t lyJ'",?3:rtio[1?"' Prosecutor, H s', c","'1 ii] the state or reransana, at

5. Two CD Copies KAI\,4/GNK /

HIGH COURT DATED: 2910912026

ORDER

CRLP.No.15890 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION slArE.oA I ) ttl NLT tq ) N '\..-Y , V. l\r"'' ), vu