Namindla Padma vs The State Of Telangana
2026 Latest Caselaw 481 Tel

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 481 Tel
Judgement Date : 8 April, 2026

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Namindla Padma vs The State Of Telangana on 8 April, 2026

 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                 AT HYDERABAD

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.5146 of 2026

                         Date: 08.04.2026

Between:

Namindla Padma and 2 others
                                                         ...Petitioners
                                 AND

State of Telangana,
Represented by the Public Prosecutor,
High Court Buildings, Hyderabad,
Through PS: WPS 1, Warangal,
Hanumakonda District and another
                                                       ...Respondents

                                ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the

petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4, seeking to quash the

proceedings in C.C.No.1744 of 2022 on the file of the learned

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Hanumakonda.

2. Heard Mr.P.Jagan Mohan, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.

3. With the consent of both the learned counsel, the

criminal petition is disposed of at the admission stage on the

ground that even according to the learned counsel for the

petitioners, the matter before the learned Trial Court has not

riped for the trial yet. 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 the

learned Magistrate, without recording satisfaction and

without assigning any reasons, has taken cognizance against

the petitioners on 25.06.2022 and issued summons

mechanically and passed cryptic docket order. Therefore, the

docket order dated 25.06.2022 passed by the learned

Magistrate is liable to be quashed.

5. Learned Assistant 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 order dated 25.06.2022.

7. It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil

Bharati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation 1 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 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

(2015) 4 SCC 609

(2013) 4 SCC 505

(2008) 2 SCC 492

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 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

(2008) 17 SCC 157

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