CRLP/15798/2026 of Mallepogu Yadhaiah @ Bureddypalle Yadhaiah Vs The State of Telangana on 28 September 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been flled by the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.289 of 2025 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mahabubnagar.

2. Heard Mr.Akkam Eshwar, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. I .

- ')

3. With the consent of both the leamed counsel, the criminal petition is disposed of at the admission stage on the ground that even according to the leamed counsel fbr 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, leamed counsel for the petilioners. submitted that the learn-ed 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. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Having considered the submissions made by the respective panies and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the learned N,{Agistrate has taken cognizance, without recording satisfaction against the accused and not against the offences, through doc,ket order .) 1 . It is very much relevant to mention that tn 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 Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infotine Limitut, 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. ln Chief Enforcemnet Olficer v. Videocon International Limited, 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 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,.tuking cognizance of the offence is the applicdtion of mind by the Magisti{te and his satisfaction that the allegations, ifproved, \ ' (2015) 4 scc 609 ' lzor:; + scc sos 3 lzooe; z scc +sz

- ttoLtld con.ttitLtte an ofance It is, thereftre, tmperative thqt on a tompluint or on a police report, the Magistrqte is bound to consicler the queslion os to w-llether the so.me discloses commission of an ollence and is tequired to form sLrch an opinion in this respect Wen he does so and decides tct itsua process, he shell be satd lr.t haye taken cognizunce At the sldge oJ ktking cognizance, the onb) consider\tion before the Court remaitls to <nnsider judiciously whether the material on which the prosecutio propoJes to prosecule tha accused brings out a prim,t facie case or not. "

8. ln Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of [Ittaranchal and anothera, it is held as fbllows: "N'eyartheless, it is well settled thq.t before a Magistrute can be said to huve taken cognizance of an olfence, it is imperatNe that he must haw taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the ullegutiotts made in the complqint or in the police report or the informolion received from o source other thun a police report, as the case ma) bc, ctnd the material ftled there.^)ith. lt needs little ernphasis that is onb when the Mogstrate applies his mind end is satis/ied that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence qnd de< ides to inittate proteedings against the qlleged offender, that it can bc gtsitively rtated thqt he has taken cognizance of the offence. Cognizance is in regdrd to the offence und not the of;fender- "

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 o1'summoning the accused to face criminal trial is a serious issue and such orders directing summons to a person to face criminal tria- cannot be on the basis of cryptic orders and it should be an order reflecting application of mind by the Presiding Officer rvhile taking cognizance and issuing process. o lzoo8; rz scc tsz

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 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 l. Accordingly, the criminal pbtition is disposed of Pending miscellaneous applications, ifany, shall stand closed To, SD/. B.REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR i/TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The lV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at l\ilahabubnag a r.

2. The Station House Officer, lt/lahabubnagar Police Station, lvlahabubnagar District.

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

4. One CC to Sri Akkam Eshwar, Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CD Copies GNK/BA (--) Yt-

HIGH COURT DATED: 2810912026

ORDER

CRLP.No.15798 ot 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION 1trE sTAr€' 0 7 ocT 2$26 C. oo i* t DP5,,6C /-.\ /'g I 'ii' a9 ut