CRLP/15841/2026 of Varre Ravi Kiran Vs The State of Telangana on 28 September 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the per itioners/accused Nos.1 and 3, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.73 1 of 2019 on the frle of the I Additionai Junior Civil Judge cum First Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420,498(A),506 read with 34 ofrhe lndian Penal Code, 1860 (for short,'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 ofthe Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961(for short, 'DP Act')

- )

2. Heard M/s. JMS Law Firm, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 .

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that accused No.2 has died and that the matter before the learned Trial Court has not riped for trial yet and is at the stage of examination of the accused The matter before the trial Court is posted to 14.10.2026.

4. Upon perusal of the recoid, it reveals that the learned Magistrate, on 04.05.2019, without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons, has taken cognizance against the petitioners and issued summons mechanically and passed cryptic docket order by using rubber stamp. Therefore, cognizance order passed by the leamed Magistrate is liable to be quashed

5. Leamed Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. Having considered the submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the leamed Magistrate has taken cognizance, without recording ,,E!lr=!.E -r:!!:t satisfaction and without assigning any reasons against the accused and not against the offences, through the cognizance order.

7. It is very much relevant to mention that tn Sunil Bharati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigationr the Hon'ble Suprente 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 Enrployees Stock Option Trust.v. India Infoline Limitut, the Hon'b1e Aper Court found fault with the order of the Magistrate in issuing summons when the Magistrate has not recorded his satrsfaction about the prima facie case against the accused. ln Chief Enforcemnet Officer v. Videocon International Limircf , the Hor'ble Supreme Court while discussing the expression 'cognizance' hell that in criminal law 'cognizance' means becoming aware of and the word used u,ith respect to Court or a Judge initiating proceedings in respect of an offence. Taking cognizance would involve application of rrind by the Magistrate to the suspected commission of an offence.

1zo Ls; + scc oos ' (zo r3) 4 scc sos 3 lzooe; z scc +sz

-

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 qpplicdtion of mind by the Magistrate and his satisfaction that the allegations, ifproved, would constilule an offence. It is, therefore, imperQtive that on a complaint or on a police report, the Magistrate is bound to consider lhe question as to \ehether the same discloses commission of an offence and is required lo form such an opinion in this respect When he does so and decides to issue process, he shall be said to have token cognizance. At the stage of taking cognizdnce, the only consideration before the Court remdins to consider judicir.tusly whether the materidl on which the prosecution proposes to prosecule the accused brings oul a prima facie cese or not. "

8. In Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal and anothera, it is held as follows "Nevertheless, it is well settled that before a Magistrate cdn be said to have taken cognizance of an offence, it is imperative thdt he must have taken notice of the occusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the compluint or in lhe police report or the informqtion received from a source other than a police report, as the case may be, and the material frled therewith. It needs little emphasis that it is otlly when the Magistrate qpplies his mind ancl is sqtisfed that the allegations, if proved, would constitute un offence and decides to initiate proceedings against the alleged offender, that it cdn be positively stated that he has taken cognizance of the offence. Cognizance is in regard ro the offence and not the offender- "

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 trial is a serious issue a4d 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 o (2008) 17 scc 157

,-*=rir"z:=, t c ref'lecting application of mind by the Presiding Officer while taking coqnizance and issuing process.

10. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments citod supra, and wirhout 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. I 1 . Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 'l The First Additional Junior Civil Judge cum First Additional [\rletropolitan lVagrstrate At l\ilalkajgiri 2 The Station House Officer, police Station Neredmet, Rachakonda 3 Two CCs to pUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana, at llyderabad [OUT]

4. On<-, CC to M/S JMS LAW FtRtU ADVOCATES AND ASSOCTATES IOPUCI 5 Two CD Copies TPK/GNK .AK \ \.

HIGH COURT DATED: 2810912026

ORDER

CRLP.No.15841 ot 2026 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DlSPOSED OF ( 1 e STArE o 0B $[I 2[26 * tl i i i'.1 gn c.* ) v a .+ I <-r-\ X. L a o