An order of a Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing process is an intermediate or quasi-final order, not an interlocutory one, and is therefore subject to the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction. Such an order must demonstrate proper application of mind and be supported by reasons.

ORDER :

Petitioner filed this Criminal Revision Case seeking to quash the docket order, dated 28.06.2025 passed in C.C.No.6274 of 2025 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the record.

3. The de facto complainant is the sister of accused No.1. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that accused No.1, a Bank employee, manipulated fixed deposit receipts created by his father, wherein the de facto complainant was the nominee. Falsely claiming that the original FDRs were missing, he obtained duplicate FDRs from the Bank. Thereafter, he transferred the amounts of the said FDRs into the account of the petitioner-accused No.2, who is his close associate.

4. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.219 of 2025 was registered and investigation was taken up. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused before the Magistrate concerned. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance, and numbered as C.C.No.6274 of 2025 and issued summons to the accused by docket order, dated 28.06.2025, which reads as follows:

“Register as C.C.No.6274 of 2025. Taken on file for the offence

U/s. 305, 318(2), 317(2) of BNS against A1 and A2. Issue

summons to A1 and A2. Call on 07.11.2025.”

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of taking cognizance directing for issuance of process by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner has preferred this revision.

Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:

6.1. There are disputes between accused No.1 and the de facto complainant, which are purely civil in nature, arising out of family issues, but the present complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant giving a criminal colour. The petitioner, a close friend of accused No.1, had advanced a loan of Rs.21,04,000/- to accused No.1 between March and December 2023, through bank transfers and cash, supported by receipts. Out of the total amount, Rs.18,50,000/- was repaid on 22.05.2025. On 27.05.2025, the petitioner’s bank account was frozen, and on enquiry, he came to know about the present proceedings. Despite his name not being mentioned in the complaint or in the statements of witnesses, he has been arrayed as accused in the charge sheet, without attributing any specific role, except stating that accused No.1 transferred the misappropriated amounts into the account of the petitioner.

6.2. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioner, without application of mind into the material on record and assigning any valid reasons. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation¹AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 923 and drawn attention of this Court to paragraph Nos.45, 46 and 53, which reads thus:

45. On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals with the issue of process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This Section relates to commencement of a criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate taking cognizance of a case (it may be the Magistrate receiving the complaint or to whom it has been transferred under Section 192), upon a consideration of the materials before him (i.e., the complaint, examination of the complainant and his witnesses if present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks that there is a prima facie case for proceeding in respect