Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J.SREENIVAS RAO
Rachakonda Saidulu – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of criminal proceedings requires cognizance. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments concerning mechanical issuance of summons. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. judicial cognizance requires application of mind. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. court quashes prior docket order; allows fresh initiation. (Para 9) |
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in SC.Spl.No.195 of 2024 pending on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Nalgonda, for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(n), 417, 420, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘ IPC ’) and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(r)(s) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (for short ‘SC ST POA Act’).
2. Heard Sri Pulimamidi Rohith Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that learned Magistrate had taken cognizance against the petitioner and issued summons mechanically even without application of mind and passed cryptic docket order dated 28.12.2024. He further submitted tha
Cognizance of offences by a Magistrate requires application of mind and proper reasoning; mechanical issuance of summons is impermissible.
The court established that a Magistrate must apply judicial consideration and provide reasoning before taking cognizance of offences, as mere summoning without such scrutiny is improper.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
