IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3869 of 2026 Date: 17.03.2026 Between:

P.V.Prasad and another ...petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad, and another ...respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.74 of 2016 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections

120-B, 406, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the criminal petition is disposed of at the stage of admission on the ground that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons. In view of the same, notice in respect of respondent No.2/defacto complainant is dispensed with.

3. Heard Sri Ramidala Kotaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter before the trial Court is at the stage of issuing Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) against accused Nos.1 and 2. The learned Magistrate without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons has taken cognizance and the same is contrary to the principle laid down in Sunil Bharati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609

5. The above said submissions are not opposed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

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,

especially taken cognizance against the accused and not against the offences through cognizance order, passed in C.C.No.74 of 2016.

7. It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittal supra 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 Limited, without applying his mind and without assigning any reasons,, 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

3 (2008) 2 SCC 492

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 a