Telangana High Court
Uppala Kiran Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 25 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4362 of 2026
Date: 25.03.2026
Between:
Uppala Kiran Kumar
..Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana,
Through S.H.O. Alwal Police Station,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of
Telangana, at Hyderabad and another
...Respondents
ORDER
This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1910 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at Athivelli, Medchal.
2. Heard Mr.M.Sudarshan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.
2
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 petitioner, the matter before the learned trial Court has not yet ripened for the trial. In view of the same, notice in respect of respondent No.2/defacto complainant is dispensed with.
4. Upon perusal of the record, it reveals that the learned Magistrate, without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons, has taken cognizance against the petitioner on 26.11.2020 and issued summons mechanically and passed cryptic docket order by using rubber stamp. Therefore, the docket order dated 26.11.2020 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 petitioner.
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 26.11.2020. 3
7. It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation1 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 2, 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, 1 (2015) 4 SCC 609 2 (2013) 4 SCC 505 3 (2008) 2 SCC 492 4 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 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."
9. 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.
4 (2008) 17 SCC 157 5
10. For the foregoing reasons and in view of 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 considered view that docket order dated 26.11.2020 passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at Athivelli, Medchal, in C.C.No.1910 of 2020 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.
11. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO 25.03.2026 vsl