Ch. Shivaji Raju And Another vs The State Of Telangana And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 980 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 980 Tel
Judgement Date : 27 February, 2023

Telangana High Court

Ch. Shivaji Raju And Another vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 27 February, 2023

Bench: K.Surender

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

          CRIMINAL PETITION No.1716 OF 2023

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.')

by the petitioners-Accused Nos.1 and 2 to quash the

proceedings against them in C.C. No.10145 of 2022

pending on the file of learned II Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The offences alleged

against them are under Sections 324, 386, 420 and 506 of

the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent - State.

Perused the record.

3. The petitioners are questioning the Orders of the

learned Magistrate in taking cognizance and issuance of

summons to the petitioners to appear and face criminal

trial for the aforesaid offences. The said cognizance was

taken by the learned Magistrate on the basis of a private

complaint filed by the 2nd respondent without going into

facts of the case.

4. Prime Facie, the order of the learned Magistrate is

contrary, as law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Sunil Bharti Mitthal Vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation1 in Criminal Appeal Nos.34 to 37 of 2015

dated 09.01.2015, wherein it is held as follows:

"52. A wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into Court merely because a complaint has been filed. If a prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction.

53. However, the words "sufficient grounds for proceeding" appearing in the Section are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the

(2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 609

order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect."

5. Further, in the Judgment of P.S.Meherhomji Vs

K.T.Vijay Kumar and Others2 in Crl.A.No.2211 of 2014

dated 14.10.2014, it is held as

"13. Indisputably, judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process lest it would be an instrument in the hands of private complainant as vendetta to harass the persons needlessly.

14. It is equally well settled that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the order taking cognizance by the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the

(2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 788

law applicable thereto. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of court and to quash the proceeding instituted on complaint but such power could be exercised only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of power Under Section 482."

6. As the learned Magistrate has not narrated any

reasons in the order for summoning the accused, the orders

have to be set aside. Further the issuance of process to

face criminal trial is a serious issue and the Magistrate

cannot order summoning of the accused without giving any

reasons and what prompted the accused to take cognizance

on the basis of facts of the case. Since the reasons are

lacking in the order for taking cognizance and issuing

summons, the said docket order dated 13.12.2022 is set

aside. However, this order will not preclude the learned

Magistrate from taking cognizance by giving appropriate

reasons.