[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Gajjala Anil Kumar vs State Of Telangana on 1 April, 2026
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.13835 OF 2024
DATE: 01.04.2026
Between :
Gajjala Anil Kumar and two others.
... Petitioners
AND
The State of Telangana
rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad
and another.
... Respondents.
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("BNSS"), seeking quashment of the
proceedings in C.C. No.1361 of 2024 on the file of the II Additional
Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Bhadradri Kothagudem.
2. The petitioners, arrayed as Accused Nos.1 to 3, are sought to
be prosecuted for the alleged offences under Section 85 of BNSS and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. Heard Mr. Devara Samhitha, learned counsel for the petitioners,
and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
appearing for respondent No.1/State.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that respondent No.2, the de
facto complainant, submitted a written complaint dated 24.03.2023
alleging that her marriage with Accused No.1 was solemnized, and at
the time of marriage, her parents allegedly gave Rs.3,00,000/- in cash,
10 tulas of gold ornaments, and household articles worth Rs.1,50,000/-
as stridhan and Rs.4,00,000/- as dowry to her husband/Accused No.1.
It is further alleged that after joining the matrimonial home, her
husband and parents-in-law/Accused Nos.1 to 3 subjected her to
physical and mental harassment, demanding an additional dowry of
Rs.5,00,000/- and a house plot. It is stated that upon being informed,
the complainant's parents approached the accused, who allegedly
threatened that, in the absence of payment of additional dowry,
Accused No.1 would be remarried for a dowry of Rs.20,00,000/-. The
complaint further alleges continued harassment, compelling her to
leave the matrimonial home on 03.05.2024. As reconciliation efforts
failed, a report was lodged, leading to registration of Crime No.132 of
2024 and subsequent filing of a charge sheet after investigation.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the
cognizance order passed by the learned Magistrate suffers from patent
illegality, as it reflects a clear non-application of mind and amounts to a
mere mechanical endorsement (a "rubber-stamp" order). It is submitted
that the order fails to disclose any reasoning or indicate satisfaction
regarding the existence of a prima facie case. Reliance is placed on
the judgment of a coordinate Bench in Crl.P. No. 2594 of 2026 dated
25.02.2026, which, in turn, follows the authoritative pronouncements of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon
International Limited, GHMC Employees Stock Option Trust v. India
Infoline Limited, Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation,
and Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal. These decisions
reiterate that taking cognizance is a judicial act requiring due
application of mind to the material on record, and that a cryptic or
mechanical order issuing process against the accused is unsustainable
in law. On these grounds, the petitioners seek quashment of the
cognizance order.
6. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that
while taking cognizance, the Magistrate is expected to consider the
material placed on record, and such consideration must be reflected, at
least prima facie, in the order. He prays for appropriate orders in
accordance with settled legal principles.
7. I have carefully perused the material available on record.
8. In the present case, the cognizance order appears to have been
passed by way of a rubber stamp endorsement, merely indicating that
cognizance is taken for offences under Section 85 of BNSS and
Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act against Accused Nos.1 to 3, with
issuance of summons by 22.11.2024.
9. A bare perusal of the cognizance order reveals that it does not
reflect any judicial satisfaction or application of mind by the learned
Magistrate as to whether the allegations and material placed on record
disclose the commission of offences warranting initiation of criminal
proceedings. There is no reason, however brief, regarding the nature of
allegations, supporting evidence, or the basis for issuance of process.
10. The legal position, as consistently laid down in Sunil Bharti
Mittal, GHMC Employees Stock Option Trust, Chief Enforcement
Officer, and Fakhruddin Ahmad (supra), mandates that before issuing
process, the Magistrate must examine the material and record
satisfaction that a prima facie case exists. The order must demonstrate
that such application of mind has indeed taken place. Failure to do so
renders the order legally unsustainable.
11. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the instant case,
this Court is of the considered view that the impugned cognizance
order is vitiated by non-application of mind and is therefore legally
untenable.
12. Resultantly, the cognizance order dated 30.07.2024 in Crime
No.132 of 2024, culminating in C.C. No.1361 of 2024 on the file of the
II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Additional Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Bhadradri Kothagudem, is hereby quashed.
13. However, it is made clear that the learned Magistrate is at liberty
to reconsider the material on record and pass a fresh, reasoned order
of cognizance, strictly in accordance with law and the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
Date: 01.04.2026 N.TUKARAMJI, J
MRKR
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.13835 OF 2024
01.04.2026
MRKR
