IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.2257 of 2026 Date: 19.02.2026 Between:

Mohammed Abdul Azeem Khan ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another ...Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.2, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3208 of 2024 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. Heard Mr.Mohammed Iqbal Ali Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing 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 by using rubber stamp dated 24.08.2024. He further submitted that the matter is only at the stage of issuance of summons and accused No.1 is absconding. Therefore, the docket order dated 24.08.2024 passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be quashed.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

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 24.08.2024.

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 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 police report or the information received from a source other than a pol