[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Raj Kumar Deshpande vs The State Of Telangana on 1 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4296 and 4309 of 2026
Date: 01.04.2026
Crl.P.No.4296 of 2026
Between:
Mr.Raj Kumar Deshpande and another
..Petitioners
AND
The State of Telangana,
Represented through Public Prosecutor,
at High Court of Telangana,
Hyderabad, through Jukkal P.S. and another
...Respondents
Crl.P.No.4309 of 2026
Between:
Mr.Raj Kumar Deshpande
..Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana,
Represented through Public Prosecutor,
at High Court of Telangana,
Hyderabad, through Jukkal P.S. and another
...Respondents
2
COMMON ORDER
This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused
Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.Nos.249 and 250
of 2022 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate
of First Class, at Bichkunda.
2. Heard Mr.Ashutosh B.Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1.
3. With the consent of both the learned counsel, the criminal
petitions are disposed of at the admission stage on the ground that
even according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the matters
before the learned trial Court have not yet ripened for the trial. In
view of the same, notice in respect of respondent No.2/defacto
complainant is dispensed with.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, pursuant to
the order dated 25.03.2026, he has placed on record xerox copies of
the cognizance orders. He further submitted that the learned
Magistrate, without recording satisfaction and without assigning any
reasons, has taken cognizance against the petitioners on 23.09.2022
and issued summons mechanically and passed cryptic docket orders.
Therefore, the docket orders dated 23.09.2022 passed by the learned
Magistrate are liable to be quashed.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective
parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals
that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance, without recording
satisfaction and without assigning any reasons against the accused and
not against the offences, through docket orders dated 23.09.2022.
7. It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittal
v. Central Bureau of Investigation1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 2, the
Hon'ble Apex Court found fault with the order of the Magistrate in
issuing summons when the Magistrate has not recorded his
(2015) 4 SCC 609
(2013) 4 SCC 505
satisfaction about the prima facie case against the accused. In Chief
Enforcemnet Officer v. Videocon International Limited 3, 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."
8. In Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal and another 4,
it is held as follows:
"Nevertheless, it is well settled that before a Magistrate can be
said to have taken cognizance of an offence, it is imperative that he must
have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the
allegations made in the complaint or in the police report or the
information received from a source other than a police report, as the
(2008) 2 SCC 492
(2008) 17 SCC 157
case may be, and the material filed therewith. It needs little emphasis
that it is only when the Magistrate applies his mind and is satisfied that
the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence and decides to
initiate proceedings against the alleged offender, that it can be positively
stated that he has taken cognizance of the offence. Cognizance is in
regard to the offence and not the offender."
9. In view of the observations and directions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the judgments referred to supra, the act of issuing
process of summoning the accused to face criminal trial is a serious
issue and such orders directing summons to a person to face criminal
trial cannot be on the basis of cryptic orders and it should be an order
reflecting application of mind by the Presiding Officer while taking
cognizance and issuing process.
10. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra, and
without going into the other grounds, this Court is of the considered
view that docket orders dated 23.09.2022 passed by the learned
Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bichkunda, in C.C.Nos.249 and 250
of 2022 are liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. However,
this order will not preclude the learned Magistrate from taking
cognizance and passing orders afresh in accordance with law, by
giving reasons.
11. Accordingly, the criminal petitions are disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
01.04.2026
vsl
