G. Ugandernath Reddy vs The State Of T.S
2023 Latest Caselaw 4040 Tel

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.11216 of 2023

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') is filed by the

petitioners/A1 to A6 seeking to quash the proceedings against them

in C.C.No.5068 of 2022 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate at Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the

petitioners are punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC.

2. Heard. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that a private

complaint was filed by respondent No.2, pursuant to which, the

learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad has

passed docket order on 08.07.2022 taking cognizance of the offences

under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC against the petitioners and issued

summons to the petitioners.

4. The docket order, dated 08.07.2022, reads as follows:

"Heard gone through the record along with statement of complainant and documents filed. In view of the specific allegations levelled against the accused, prima facie case is made out. Hence, cognizance is taken under Section 420, 406 of IPC against the accused. Issue summons to Respondent/Accused. Call on 23.09.2022."

5. As seen from the docket order, it is bereft of any reasons as to

why cognizance has to be taken against the petitioners. It does not

reflect that the learned Magistrate is conversant with the facts of the

case.

6. This Court in the common order, dated 28.02.2023 in Criminal

Petition Nos.439 and 545 of 2023, quashed the proceedings therein

observing that taking cognizance against the accused therein was not

in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the cases of i) Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of

Investigation 1; ii) Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal

and another 2 and iii) Deepak Gaba and others v. State of Uttar

Pradesh 3.

7. This Court in Criminal Petition Nos.439 and 545 of 2023, held

as follows:

"16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that mere assertion "that having perused the record and statements of witnesses prima facie accusation is well founded" as recorded by the learned Magistrate will not meet the requirements of summoning the accused by application of judicious mind.

Time and again, this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has found that summoning a person as accused to face criminal trial is a serious step taken by the criminal Court and such summoning can only be done when the Magistrate finds on the basis of facts that the ingredients of the offence alleged are prima facie made out. For the said reason, cognizance order

(2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 609)

(2008) 17 Supreme Court Cases 157

(2023 LiveLaw(SC) 3

bereft of proper reasoning is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside."

8. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the aforesaid judgments and also the common order passed by this

Court in Criminal Petition Nos.439 and 545 of 2023, the impugned

docket order, dated 08.07.2022 taking cognizance against the

petitioners/A1 to A6 by III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at

Hyderabad, is hereby set aside.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the

proceedings against the petitioners/A1 to A6 in C.C.No.5068 of 2022

on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at

Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. However, this order will not

preclude the learned Magistrate from taking cognizance by giving

adequate reasons.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this criminal

petition, shall stand closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 15.11.2023 ssp