IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.2717 of 2026 Date: 26.02.2026 Between:

Madham Sudhakar ...petitioner/accused AND State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ghanpur (M), Jayashankar Bhupalpally and another ...respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused, seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C.SPL.No.005 of 2023 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge for SC/ST and (POA) Act Cases Court, at Warangal, for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(s) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act.

2. Heard Mr. Mandala Nagendra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

3. With the consent of both the learned counsel, this criminal petition is disposed of at the admission stage. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor notice or prior intimation in respect of respondent No.2/de facto complainant is not required on the ground that the learned trial Court has taken cognizance on 31.01.2023 and issued summons to the petitioner. In view of the same, notice in respect of respondent No.2/de facto complainant is dispensed with.

4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the learned Magistrate without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons has taken cognizance on 31.01.2023 and issued summons to the petitioner and the same is contrary to the principle laid down in Sunil Bharati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609

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 on 31.01.2023 without applying his mind and without assigning any reasons, especially taken cognizance against the accused and not

S.C.SPL.No.005 of 2023.

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, against the offences through cognizance order passed in, 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

3 (2008) 2 SCC 492

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