IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3833 of 2026 Date: 16.03.2026 Between:

Singireddy Shankar Reddy and another ...petitioner/accused No.1 AND The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad and another ...respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1389 of 2024 pending on the file of the VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal, for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Ms. Meghana AddlaSuneel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Magistrate without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons has taken cognizance and issued summons to the petitioners and the same is contrary to the principle laid down in Sunil Bharati Mittal v.

Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609

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

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 cognizance order passed in C.C.No.1389 of 2024. 6. 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, (2008) 2 SCC 492, 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 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 police report, as the case may be, and the material filed therewith. It needs littl