Telangana High Court
Asia Jabeen vs The State Of Telangana on 1 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4759 of 2026
Date: 01.04.2026
Between:
Asia Jabeen
...petitioner/accused No.5
AND
The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor
for High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad and another
...respondents
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.7093 of 2021 pending on the file of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 420 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
2. Heard Sri Mohd Fasiuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.
2
3. 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 on 01.06.2021 and issued summons to the petitioners and the same is contrary to the principle laid down in Sunil Bharati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation1.
4. The above said submissions are not opposed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
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 01.06.2021 without applying his mind and without assigning any reasons, especially taken cognizance against the accused and not against the offences through cognizance order dated 01.06.2021 passed in C.C.No.7093 of 2021.
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. 1 (2015) 4 SCC 609 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 Limited2, 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 3, 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 2 (2013) 4 SCC 505 3 (2008) 2 SCC 492 4 on which the prosecution proposes to prosecute the accused brings out a prima facie case or not."
7. In Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal and another 4, 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 allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence and decides to initiate proceedings against the alleged offender, that it can be positively stated that he has taken cognizance of the offence. Cognizance is in regard to the offence and not the offender."
8. In view of the observations and directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to supra, the act of issuing process of summoning the accused to face criminal trial is a serious issue and such orders directing summons to a person to face criminal trial cannot be on the basis of cryptic orders and it should be an order reflecting application of mind by the Presiding Officer while taking cognizance and issuing process.
9. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra, and without going into the other grounds, this Court is of the 4 (2008) 17 SCC 157 5 considered view that cognizance order passed in C.C.No.7093 of 2021 pending on the file of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Magistrate, Hyderabad, is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. However, this order will not preclude the learned Magistrate from taking cognizance and passing orders afresh in accordance with law, by giving reasons.
10. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO 01.04.2026 ggd