ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1576 of 2024, on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhupalpally.

Heard Mr.Dornala Sai Mahitha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.

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 ripened for the trial yet. In view of the same, notice in respect of respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Magistrate, without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons, has taken cognizance against the petitioners and issued summons mechanically and passed cryptic docket order. Therefore, the docket order passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be quashed.

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

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.

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.”

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 little emphasis that it is only when the Magistrate applies his mind and is satisfied that the