##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5773 of 2026

Date: 17.04.2026

Between:

Bijji Padmavathi and three others ...Petitioners

AND

State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor,

High Court at Hyderabad, through Station House Officer, PS Mailardevally,

Cyberabad District and another

...Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused

Nos.1 to 4, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2894 of 2025 on the file of the learned XII Additional Judicial Magistrate

of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendra Nagar.

2. Heard Mr.K.Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.

2

3. 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.

4. 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

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, 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.2894 of 2025. 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.

3

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 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

3 (2008) 2 SCC 492

4

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 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 informatio