##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.17909 of 2026 Between :

Sri Koduru Pitecheswara Rao S/o. Late Subba Rao Age: 63 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Flat No.104, 304 of Koduru Mansion, Indra Nagar, Gachibowli, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District N/o.Vijayawada ….Petitioner/De facto complainant VERSUS The State of Telangana through PS. Gachibowli, Hyderabad.

Rep by its Public Prosecutor and seven others.

… Respondents DATE OF ORDER: 29.10.2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO 1. Whether Reporters of Local Yes/No newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may Yes/No be marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish Yes/No to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

_______________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO + CRIMINAL PETITION No.17909 of 2026 % Dated 29.10.2026 # Sri Koduru Pitecheswara Rao S/o. Late Subba Rao Age: 63 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Flat No.104, 304 of Koduru Mansion, Indra Nagar, Gachibowli, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District N/o.Vijayawada ….Petitioner/De facto complainant VERSUS $ The State of Telangana through PS. Gachibowli, Hyderabad.

##PAGE2##

Rep by its Public Prosecutor and seven others.

… Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioner : Mr. VSRMV Prasad ^ Counsel for Respondents : Mr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor (for respondent No.1)

GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

? CITATIONS:

1. (2015)4 SCC 609 2. (2013) 4 SCC 505 3. (2008) 2 SCC 492

4. (2008) 17 SCC 157 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.17909 of 2026 (CNR No.HBHC010742362026)

##PAGE3##

Date: 29.10.2026 Between:

Sri Koduru Pitcheswara Rao ...Petitioner/de facto complainant AND The State of Telangana and seven others ...Respondents :: O R D E R ::

This Criminal Petition has been filed aggrieved by the docket order passed by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, (for short, ‘the learned trial Court’) in taking cognizance of the offence under Section 122(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’), against respondent Nos.2 to 8/accused Nos.1 to 7.

2. Heard Mr. VSRMV Prasad Sanaka, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State.

3. Notice in respect of respondent Nos.2 to 8 is dispensed with on the ground that the petitioner is the de facto complainant filed the by the learned trial Court.

##PAGE4##

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned X Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, R.R. District at Kukatpally, (for short, ‘the learned Magistrate’), without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons, took cognizance against respondent Nos.2 to 8 and not against the offence, and issued summons and the same is contrary to law. The learned Magistrate ought to have taken cognizance of the offence and not against the respondent Nos.2 to 8, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609, GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Limited, (2013) 4 SCC 505, Chief Enforcemnet Officer v. Videocon International Limited, (2008) 2 SCC 492 and Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal and another, present criminal petition, aggrieved by the cognizance order passed. Unless the cognizance order passed by the learned Magistrate is quashed and necessary directions are issued to take cognizance afresh in terms of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments cited supra, the petitioner will be put to great hardship.

4 (2008) 17 SCC 157

##PAGE5##

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submits that the learned trial Court ought to have taken cognizance of the offence and not against the accus