CRLP/15889/2026 of Gurram Keshava Chandra, Vs The State of Telangana on 29 September 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.8 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.264l of 2025 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Il Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar.

2. Heard M/s.JMS Law Firm for the petitioner and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public 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 Courl has not yet ripened for the trial. In view of the same, nolice in respect of respondent No.2ldefacto cornplainant is dispensed rvith

4. During the course gfhearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the 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 is liable to be quashed.

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

6. Having considered the submissions made by thc respective panies and afler perusal of the material available on record, it reveals thal the lcarned \4asistrate has taken cognizance, rvithout recording satisfactiou acainst the accused and not against the otTences, through docket orclei-

7 ' It is very much relevant to mention that in sun, Bhurati Mixar v. Central Bureau of Investigationt theHon,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. ln GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infotine Limite*, 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. In Chief Enforcemnet Officer v. Videocon International Limitedr ,, 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 ofan offence. Taking cognizancewould involve application of mind by the Magistrate to the suspected commission of an offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharati Mittal,s case (Supra), further held as foilows: "Sine ,Qua Non for takng cognaance of the offence is the applictttion oJ. mind by the. Magistrate antl his sorisft,riio, thnt thn o "gnrr)irtr,"ip**a, ' (201s) 4 scc 609 ' (2013) 4 SCC sos ' (2008) 2 scc 492

,toLtld constltLttc an a-ffcncc lt ts, thereJbre, imperutiv,: t]tot on u com1tl611n1 or on e policc report, thc Magi.\trate t biurul to consi(ler thc que.tiiolt Lts to whelher the sume tliscloses.comnission oJ un oflence untl is required ro fbrm such un opinion in this respect. Wtcn he tloes so ancl dcciclcs ro issuc procest, he thqll be r-ard to hoyc taken cogn,lzance At the .srugt ctf tuking cagnizqnce, the only consideration be/ore the Court rcmqins to consicler jucliciousll thether lhe mcttertol ,,t,1 u,htch the pros(LLttLon proposes to prosecr e the accu-\eLl brings ottl u primct fucie cuse or t10t. '

ln Fakhrurldin Ahmad v. Stste of Uttaranchal and anothera. it is held as fbllows .\ct.crthclass, it is tell se led that bcforc u i\[ugistrute L\m he .\aio to hle tukcn c<tgni;uncc of crn <tfJence, it is imperuti,e thqt he must hat,a tuken notice of the {rc.L.usations and uppliert his nincl to the ullegotiotts ntrla in the corupluint or in tlie' policr: rcporr or the ltib-m,tiott rcccited fron u soto.Le other thtrn u poltt.a rt,port, cts the .Lt.t( nier be, and the nutteriul .liled thcratith It nce,.l.s litile entphttsis (l,tdt i..it onlJ- r'ltcn the,l[qgistrute applies his mtntl und is:;ttnsfied rlnt the tllcgations, if proved, .,toultl constitute cttt oflbnct un,l clecicle.:t ro ittiti;tte proceedings ogqinst thc allegecl ofibntler, thot tt c,utl be gt.sitively stctt(d thlt ha hqs taken cogni.ctnce of the oJ,fence. Cogni:ancc is in ri'garcl to the affence uncl not tha offender. "

t) . In view of the obsen ations and directions of the Hon,ble Supreme Courl in the judgments referred to supra. the act of issuing I)rocess 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 shoutd be an order reflectirg applicarion of mind by the presiding olncer while taking cognlzance and issuing process. o (2008) 17 scc 157

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 view that the cognizance order is liabie 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/- K. BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To

1. The ll Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-ll Additional Judicial lt4agistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar.

2. The Station House Officer, L.B.Nagar Police Station, Ranga Reddy District.

3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to M/s JIvIS Law Firm Advocates And Associates, Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies ,k pr/GNK

(

HIGH COURT DATED: 2910912026 t1t. S iAf

{- o

ORDER

CRLP.No.15889 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION 9co(<s s(tol4 K.P

, , '|,,', ,:,, TT t :)--ii 0x 0 \:. ..-..-----..-..'-.