HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2597 of 2021 DATE: 21.01.2026 Between :

Kottam Bhagyavathi and four others ....Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 6 AND The State of Telangana, Through WPS Saroornagar, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of TS and another ....Respondents : O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 6 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1215 of 2021 on the file of the V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B.Nagar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the D.P. Act’).

2. Heard Ms. Keerthi Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. Ch. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Bhakti B. Turakhia, learned counsel representing Mr. Sujith Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners never harassed respondent No.2 either physically or mentally for additional dowry. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint and the final report, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 498-A and 323 of the IPC are not attracted. She further submitted that petitioner Nos.3 to 5 are residing at their respective places, which are different from one another, and that the petitioners never lived with respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has implicated all the family members of accused No.1 by making omnibus allegations. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the parents, and petitioner Nos.3 to 5 are the sisters of accused No.1. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law.

3.1. She further submitted that the learned Magistrate, without recording satisfaction or assigning reasons, took cognizance and issued summons on 27.02.2021, which is contrary to law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that whether the petitioners have committed the offences or not has to be adjudicated and decided by the trial Court after a full- fledged trial. There are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners, and therefore, they are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.1215 of 2021.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the learned Magistrate, without recording satisfaction or assigning any reasons, took cognizance and issued summons to the petitioners on 27.02.2021.

6. 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 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 Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Limited3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while discussing the expression ‘cognizance’ held that in

1 (2015) 4 SCC 609

3 (2008) 2 SCC 492

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 taki