IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3432 of 2026 Date: 10.03.2026 Between:

M.Laxmi Chakravarthi ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad and another.

...Respondents

Order

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.6550 of 2024 on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Mr.P.Animi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the Investigating Officer filed the final report against accused Nos.1, 2 and 4, and this Court set aside the cognizance order insofar as accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 are concerned on 18.02.2026. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer filed a supplementary charge sheet against accused No.3. The learned trial Court, without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons, passed a cryptic order on 03.12.2025 by taking the supplementary charge sheet on file against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 506 and 509 read with Section 34 of the IPC and merged the same with the earlier charge sheet filed against accused Nos.1, 2 and 4. He further submits that the learned trial Court, without recording any satisfaction and without assigning any reasons, straightaway took the supplementary charge sheet on file, which is contrary to the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunil Bharati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation¹ and Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal and another²

4. Learned Assistant 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 passed a cryptic order without assigning any reasons against the petitioner on 03.12.2025.

6. It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation³ 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 Limited⁴, 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 Limited⁵, 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 Utta