[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Sirigiri Sunil Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 15 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5540 of 2026
Date: 15.04.2026
Between:
Sirigiri Sunil Kumar
...Petitioner/Accused
AND
The State of Telangana, represented by its
Public Prosecutor, and another
...Respondents
ORDER
This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused
seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.588 of 2022 on the file of
the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Sircilla, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
2. Heard Mr. Ramanjaneyulu, learned counsel, representing
Mr.T.Surya Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.Balaji,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and
Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for respondent No.1. With their consent, 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 yet ripened for trial.
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 17.05.2022
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 17.05.2022
without applying his mind and without assigning any reasons,
especially taken cognizance against the accused and not against the
offences through cognizance order passed in C.C.No.588 of 2022.
(2015) 4 SCC 609
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. 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
(2013) 4 SCC 505
(2008) 2 SCC 492
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. 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
(2008) 17 SCC 157
going into the other grounds, this Court is of the considered view that
cognizance order passed in C.C.No.588 of 2022 pending on the file of
the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Sircilla, 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
15.04.2026
pgp
