CRLP/15894/2026 of Manne Bikshapathi, Vs The State of Telangana on 29 September 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1314 of 2025 onthe file of the leamed VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal

2. Heard Mr.Mohd. Barkat Ali, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned 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 leamed counsel for the petitioner, the matter before ,/

the learrred tnal Court has not yet ripened for the trial. ln view of the same, notice in respect of respondent No.2ldefacto cornplainant is dispensed with

4. During the course of hearing, leamed counsel for the petitioner, submittecl that the learned Magistrate, without recording satisfaction, has taken cognizance against the petitioner and issued summons mr:chanically and passed cryptic docket order. Therefore, the docket orrler passed by the learned N4agistrate is liable to be quashed

5. Leamed Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the sulmissions rnade by the leamed counsel for the petitloner.

6. Having considered the submissions made by the respective parties aud after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals thirt the leamed Magistrate has taken cognizance, without recording satisfaction against the accused and not against the offences, through dc cket order 1 . It is very much relevant to mention thal tn Sunil Bharati Mittal v, Central Bureau of Investigatio,ri the Hon'blc Supreme Coun held 1 ( to15) 4 scc 609

a 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 fbr summoning a person. ln GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infotine Limiledl, 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. rn chief Enforcemnet OfJicer v. Videocon International Limited, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the expression , cognizance, held that in criminal iaw '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 case (Supra), further held as follows; "Sine Qua Non for taking cognizance of the offence is the qpplication of mind by the Magtstrate ond his satisfaction that the ullegations, rfproved, would constitute an o;ffence. It is, therefore, imperative that on q complaint or on a police report, the Magistrate is bound to consid.er the question us to whether the same discloses commission of an offence and is required to form such an opinion in this respect. Wen he cloes so qncl decides to issue process, he shall be said to have taken cognizance. At the stege of taking cognizance, the only consideretion before the Court '? lzor:y + scc sos 3 lzoos; z scc +sz remains to consider iudtciously \thether the materidl on wlich the prosecuton proposes to prosecute the qccused brings out u pritrut facie cqse or not- ' In l-akhrudilin Ahmad. v. State of (Ittaranchal and anothera, it is held as follows ' Neve'rtheless, it is v;ell settLed that before u Magistrate can be said to huve taken cogntzance of on o;ffence, it is imperatr"e that he must hqve token notice of lhe qccusations and applied his mind to the alLegutions macle in the compldint or in the police reprtrt or the injbrmcttion receiled from d source other thdn a police report, as the cose may be, antl the muterial Jiled therewith lt needs little emphasis thst it is onb, when the Magistrate applies his mind and is tiatislied that the allt:gatictns, if proved, v,ould contlitute qn olfence oncl decides to initidte proceedings against the aLleged offender, that it can be positiveLy stdted thal he hos taken cognizance of the oJfence. Cognizance is in regard to thc offence ond not the rLffender. " g. In view of the observations and directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Courl 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 Ofhcer while taking ccgnizance and issuing Process. 1). For the foregoing reasons and in view of the principles laid dcvn,n by the Hon'ble Apex Courl 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. I l. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, ABK /GNK

1. The Vll Additional Judicial IVagistrate of First Cass, I\,4edchal 2 The VllAddrtional l\/etropolitan lVlagistrate at A/edchal, Cyberabad

3. The Station House Officer, Shameerpet police Station, Cyberabad

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

5. One CC to Sri lvlohd Barkat Ati, Advocate tOpUCl

6. Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT DATED: 2910912026

ORDER

CRLP.No.15894 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION ,-1., i 0E 0[i 2026 ^ $. .,7

- .af t-- ' -:"' ,'..,.-.

- --, ,+:r' 1t{E SIa 14: t

P t') -! M \