ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 7, 9 and 10 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.6603 of 2025 pending on the file of the VII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, City Criminal Court, at Nampally, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Heard Sri Md. Nawz Hyder Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

3. With the consent of both the learned counsel, the criminal petition is disposed of at the admission stage on the ground that even according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the matter before the learned Trial Court has not riped for the trial yet and is at the stage of summons. In view of the same, notice in respect of respondent No.2/defacto complainant is dispensed with.

4. 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 against the petitioners on 02.07.2025 and issued summons mechanically and passed cryptic docket order. Therefore, the docket order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be quashed.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

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 recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons against the accused and not against the offences, through docket order dated 02.07.2025.

7. It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609 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.”

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 com