Telangana High Court
Anthareddy Gangareddy vs The State Of Telangana, on 7 April, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12856 OF 2024
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners /accused,
seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.287
of 2023, pending on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class
Magistrate, at Nizamabad, registered for the offences under
Sections 448, 290, 324, and 506 r/w.34 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/accused and Sri
M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for
the respondent - State. Perused the record.
3. A private complaint was filed and the learned Magistrate
has passed the following order:-
"Heard. Perused the material on record, taken
cognizance for the offences under Sections 448, 324,
290 of IPC against A-1 and A-2. Issue summons to A-
1 and A-2, call on 05.08.2023."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehmood Ul Rehman vs.
Khazir Mohammad Tunda and others (Crl.A.No.1348 of
2010). The relevant paragraph read as under:
"23. The steps taken by the Magistrate under Section
190(1) (a) of CrPC followed by Section 204 of CrPC should
reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts
and the statements and he is satisfied that there is ground
for proceeding further in the matter by asking the person
against whom the violation of law is alleged, to appear
before the court. The satisfaction on the ground for
proceeding would mean that the facts alleged in the
complaint would constitute an offence, and when
considered along with the statements recorded, would,
prima facie, make the accused answerable before the court.
No doubt, no formal order or a speaking order is required
to be passed at that stage. The Code of Criminal Procedure
requires speaking order to be passed under Section 203 of
CrPC when the complaint is dismissed and that too the
reasons need to be stated only briefly. In other words, the
Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance
of each and every complaint filed before him and issue
process as a matter of course. There must be sufficient
indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is
satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constitute an
offence and when considered along with the statements
recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation
under Section 202 of CrPC, if any, the accused is
answerable before the criminal court, there is ground for
proceeding against the accused under Section 204 of CrPC,
by issuing process for appearance. Application of mind is
best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the
satisfaction. If there is no such indication in a case where
the Magistrate proceeds under Sections 190/204 of CrPC,
the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC is bound to
invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the
power of the criminal court. To be called to appear before
criminal court as an accused is serious matter affecting
one's dignity, self respect and image in society. Hence, the
process of criminal court shall not be made a weapon of
harassment."
5. In cases where a private complaint is filed, it is for the
concerned Court to apply its mind to the facts of the case,
either to take cognizance of the offence or refer it to the Police
for investigation. What prompted the concerned Magistrate or
Judge to refer the complaint to the Police for investigation must
be stated in reference order. While not in detail, the reasons for
the Judge's satisfaction that the complaint needs investigation
must be mentioned.
6. This Court in Thiyagarajan Aniayampati Sivaswamy vs.
The State of Telangna in Crl.P.No.3651 of 2023 held as under:
"17. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate
to pass the following direction which shall be scrupulously
followed by the trial Courts on criminal side in the State of
Telangana:
"1) While referring a case under Section 156(3) of
Cr.P.C., the Magistrate shall make a very brief note of
the case and his satisfaction that it is a fit case to be
investigated by the police."
7. Since the order taking cognizance is bereft of reasons, this
Court deems it appropriate to set aside the cognizance order
dated 27.02.2023. However, this order will not preclude the
learned Magistrate in taking cognizance by giving reasons in
accordance with above cited judgment and by following the
direction mentioned above.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 07.04.2025
dv
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12856 OF 2024
Date:07.04.2025
dv
