Telangana High Court
Gajjala Anil Kumar vs State Of Telangana on 1 April, 2026
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.13835 OF 2024
DATE: 01.04.2026
Between :
Gajjala Anil Kumar and two others.
... Petitioners
AND
The State of Telangana
rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad
and another.
... Respondents.
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("BNSS"), seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C. No.1361 of 2024 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadradri Kothagudem.
2
2. The petitioners, arrayed as Accused Nos.1 to 3, are sought to be prosecuted for the alleged offences under Section 85 of BNSS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. Heard Mr. Devara Samhitha, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1/State.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that respondent No.2, the de facto complainant, submitted a written complaint dated 24.03.2023 alleging that her marriage with Accused No.1 was solemnized, and at the time of marriage, her parents allegedly gave Rs.3,00,000/- in cash, 10 tulas of gold ornaments, and household articles worth Rs.1,50,000/- as stridhan and Rs.4,00,000/- as dowry to her husband/Accused No.1. It is further alleged that after joining the matrimonial home, her husband and parents-in-law/Accused Nos.1 to 3 subjected her to physical and mental harassment, demanding an additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and a house plot. It is stated that upon being informed, the complainant's parents approached the accused, who allegedly threatened that, in the absence of payment of additional dowry, Accused No.1 would be remarried for a dowry of Rs.20,00,000/-. The complaint further alleges continued harassment, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home on 03.05.2024. As reconciliation efforts 3 failed, a report was lodged, leading to registration of Crime No.132 of 2024 and subsequent filing of a charge sheet after investigation.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the cognizance order passed by the learned Magistrate suffers from patent illegality, as it reflects a clear non-application of mind and amounts to a mere mechanical endorsement (a "rubber-stamp" order). It is submitted that the order fails to disclose any reasoning or indicate satisfaction regarding the existence of a prima facie case. Reliance is placed on the judgment of a coordinate Bench in Crl.P. No. 2594 of 2026 dated 25.02.2026, which, in turn, follows the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Limited, GHMC Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Limited, Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, and Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal. These decisions reiterate that taking cognizance is a judicial act requiring due application of mind to the material on record, and that a cryptic or mechanical order issuing process against the accused is unsustainable in law. On these grounds, the petitioners seek quashment of the cognizance order.
6. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that while taking cognizance, the Magistrate is expected to consider the material placed on record, and such consideration must be reflected, at 4 least prima facie, in the order. He prays for appropriate orders in accordance with settled legal principles.
7. I have carefully perused the material available on record.
8. In the present case, the cognizance order appears to have been passed by way of a rubber stamp endorsement, merely indicating that cognizance is taken for offences under Section 85 of BNSS and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act against Accused Nos.1 to 3, with issuance of summons by 22.11.2024.
9. A bare perusal of the cognizance order reveals that it does not reflect any judicial satisfaction or application of mind by the learned Magistrate as to whether the allegations and material placed on record disclose the commission of offences warranting initiation of criminal proceedings. There is no reason, however brief, regarding the nature of allegations, supporting evidence, or the basis for issuance of process.
10. The legal position, as consistently laid down in Sunil Bharti Mittal, GHMC Employees Stock Option Trust, Chief Enforcement Officer, and Fakhruddin Ahmad (supra), mandates that before issuing process, the Magistrate must examine the material and record satisfaction that a prima facie case exists. The order must demonstrate that such application of mind has indeed taken place. Failure to do so renders the order legally unsustainable.
5
11. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the instant case, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned cognizance order is vitiated by non-application of mind and is therefore legally untenable.
12. Resultantly, the cognizance order dated 30.07.2024 in Crime No.132 of 2024, culminating in C.C. No.1361 of 2024 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadradri Kothagudem, is hereby quashed.
13. However, it is made clear that the learned Magistrate is at liberty to reconsider the material on record and pass a fresh, reasoned order of cognizance, strictly in accordance with law and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
Date: 01.04.2026 N.TUKARAMJI, J
MRKR
6
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.13835 OF 2024
01.04.2026
MRKR