Telangana High Court
L. Ravinder Nayak vs The State Of Telangana on 19 June, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4063 OF 2025
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the
summoning order dated 11.12.2023 against the
petitioner/accused No.4 in C.C.No.404 of 2023 on the file of the
learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor,
Nizamabad District (for short, "the trial Court").
2. Heard Mr.C.M.R.Velu, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing
for respondent No.1-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is the Sub-Registrar/accused No.4 and the accusation
against him in the complaint is that the petitioner along with
accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 6 played fraud and grabbed assigned lands
in survey Nos.40/2 and 40/3 at Lakkora Village Shivar by
creating false documents; that during the course of investigation,
the Investigating Officer addressed letters to the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Armoor for their permission to drop
action against accused Nos.3, 4, 6 to 8. Upon obtaining the
permission the Investigating Officer dropped action against them
and filed charge sheet against accused nos.1, 2 and 5 only.
However, contrary to the charge sheet the learned Judge of the
trial Court issued summons against accused Nos.1 to 10 on
11.12.2023, which is abuse of process of law.
4. He further stated that the petitioner appeared before the
learned Judge on 25.02.2025 whereupon he was directed to
furnish personal bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties and the
case was posted to 28.03.2025. He submits that the learned
Magistrate issued summons mechanically without there being
any protest petition filed by respondent No.2. Therefore, relying
on the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal
Petition No.1687 of 2020, he seeks to quash the impugned
proceedings.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the
petitioner has already received the summons and appeared before
the trial Court. Therefore, he states that, interference of this
Court, at this stage, is not warranted and seeks to dismiss this
Criminal Petition.
6. The only ground raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that, the Court below has mechanically taken
cognizance on a printed format and issued summons. Such
issuance of summons, without giving any reasons is bad in view
of the judgment of this Court in Alda D'souza vs. State of
Telanaga and Others 1.
This Court, in Alda D'souza's case, held as under:
"11. Issuance of process in criminal trial is a serious issue.
Unless the criminal Court finds adequate grounds and
reasons to summon the witness, the same cannot be done.
In the present case no protest application was filed by the
de facto complainant questioning the deletion of the names
of these petitioners, when charge sheet was filed. As seen
from the endorsement of the learned Magistrate it was
ordered to issue summons to accused No.1 to accused
No.5 without there being any other order or reasons for
issuance of summons to these petitioners against whom
proceedings were dropped. It appears that the Magistrate
without 6 even looking into the charge sheet, mechanically
directed issuance of summons.
12. Several quash petitions are being filed before this
Court questioning the very cognizance order taken by the
learned Magistrates or the Special Courts. The cognizance
orders are bereft of any reasons and bald assertions are
made for taking cognizance; to illustrate,
i) In some of the orders it is mentioned as "having gone
through the statements and other material, the court is
satisfied to take cognizance" and accordingly summons
are issued;
2023 Lawsuit (TS) 583
ii) In the present case, it is endorsed by the Magistrate
as "the complaint is taken on file against the accused for
offences punishable U/s....";
iii) Instead of writing a Cognizance order, stamps are
made and stamped on the Charge sheet/complaint and
Blanks are filled about the cognizance being taken
under the penal provisions and the next date of hearing
is also filled up and summons are sent to the accused;
iv) In some of the cases in the remand report, police
have prepared the notes of the Magistrate and the
Magistrate has filled up the offences, date and signs the
remand order.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Bharti
Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2015 4 SCC 609
case 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,
the, Hon'ble Supreme 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 Enforcement Officer v.
Videocon International Limited, 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, 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."
7. Since the summons were issued mechanically on a printed
format, which clearly indicates that the Magistrate has not gone
into the charge sheet or documents filed along with charge sheet,
before taking cognizance to apply his mind, the order of
Magistrate taking cognizance is hereby set aside. However, this
order will not preclude the Magistrate from taking cognizance
against the petitioner, by following the directions of this Court in
Alda D'souza's case (supra). This Court has not expressed any
view on the complicity or otherwise of the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 19.06.2025
ESP
