THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.2219 of 2021

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.975 of 2023 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-VIII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kukatpally, Medchal Malkajgiri District, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 464, 468, 471 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Mr.Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr.P.Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 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 13.06.2017. He further submitted that the learned Magistrate ought to have taken cognizance against the offence only but not against accused. Therefore, the docket order dated 13.06.2017 passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashment of the proceedings on the grounds raised in the present criminal petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. 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 docket order dated 13.06.2017, which reads as under:

“C.C.No.2333 of 2017 taken on file under Sections 420, 406, 464, 468, 471 and 380 of the IPC against the accused. Issue summons by call on 25.09.2017”.

6. It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609 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 Limited, (2013) 4 SCC 505, 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 Enforcemnet 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

3 (2008) 2 SCC 492

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.”

7. 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 offen