IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION No.16811 of 2025

Date: 16.12.2025

Between:

Raipally Sai Krishna.

...Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana,

Represented by its Public Prosecutor

High Court for the State of Telangana,

At Hyderabad and another

...Respondents

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the

proceedings in C.C.No.460 of 2023, on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vikarabad, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused, registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 354 (D) and 506 of IPC.

2. Heard Mr. Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1-State. 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 cognizance order dated 29.09.2023. He further submitted that the learned Magistrate

ought to have taken cognizance against the offence only but not against accused. Therefore, the cognizance order dated 29.09.2023

passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be quashed.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor did not oppose the same.

5. Notice in respect of respondent No.2 is dispensed with only on the ground that petitioner is not seeking any relief against respondent No.2.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance without applying his mind and without assigning any reasons, especially taken cognizance against the accused and not against the offences through cognizance order dated 29.09.2023.

7. It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation¹ 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 Infoline Limited², 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 Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Limited3, 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 of an 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 application of mind by the Magistrate and his satisfaction that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence. It is, therefore, imperative that on a complaint or on a police report, the Magistrate is bound to consider the question as to whether the same discloses commission of an offence and is required to form such an opinion in this respect. When he does so and decides to issue process, he shall be said to have taken cognizance. At the stage of taking cognizance, the only consideration before the Court remains to consider judiciously whether the material on which the prosecution proposes to prosecute the accused brings out a prima facie case or not.”

8. In Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal and another, (2008) 17 SCC 157, it is held as follows:

“Nevertheless, it is well settled that before a Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offence, it is imperative that he must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the complaint or in the po