[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Chaitanya Krishna @ Yarramsetti ... vs The State Of Telangana on 9 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5276 of 2026
Date: 09.04.2026
Between:
Chaitanya Krishna
...petitioner/accused
AND
The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another
...respondents
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused
seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3979 of 2025 pending
on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class
(Excise), Ranga Reddy-V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First
Class-cum-V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District
at L.B. Nagar, for the offences punishable under Section 351(2) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').
2. Heard Ms. B. Shirisha, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1.
3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate without recording
satisfaction and without assigning any reasons has taken
cognizance on 09.10.2025 and issued summons to the petitioner
and the same is contrary to the principle laid down in Sunil
Bharati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation1.
4. The above said submissions are not opposed by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor.
5. 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
on 09.10.2025 without applying his mind and without assigning any
reasons, especially taken cognizance against the accused and not
against the offences through cognizance order dated 09.10.2025
passed in C.C.No.3979 of 2025.
6. It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati
Mittal supra the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order of
issuing process to accused to face criminal trial is a serious issue.
(2015) 4 SCC 609
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 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
(2013) 4 SCC 505
(2008) 2 SCC 492
on which the prosecution proposes to prosecute the accused brings
out a prima facie case or not."
7. 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."
8. 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.
9. For the foregoing reasons as well as 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
(2008) 17 SCC 157
considered view that cognizance order passed in C.C.No.3979 of
2025 pending on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First
Class (Excise), Ranga Reddy-V Additional Judicial Magistrate of
First Class-cum-V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy
District at L.B. Nagar, is 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.
10. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
09.04.2026
ggd
