Smt. Polisetty Swaroopa vs The State Of Telangana
2026 Latest Caselaw 134 Tel

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 134 Tel
Judgement Date : 30 March, 2026

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Smt. Polisetty Swaroopa vs The State Of Telangana on 30 March, 2026

 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                 AT HYDERABAD

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
             CRIMINAL PETITION No.4493 of 2026
                         Date: 30.03.2026
Between:
Smt Polisetty Swaroopa and another
                                ...petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3
                              AND
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Telangana and four others
                                                     ...respondents
                            ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused

Nos.1 and 3, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1429 of

2025 on the file of the VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate

Court, Cyberabad at Hayath Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, for the

offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(2), and 352 read

with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the criminal petition

is disposed of at the stage of admission on the ground that the

learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on 21.08.2025, without

recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons.

In view of the same, notice in respect of respondent No.5 is

dispensed with.

3. Heard Mr. Jaswanth Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter

before the trial Court is not yet riped for trial. The learned

Magistrate without recording satisfaction and without assigning any

reasons has taken cognizance on 21.08.2025 and the same is

contrary to the principle laid down in Sunil Bharati Mittal v.

Central Bureau of Investigation1.

5. The above said submissions are not opposed by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor.

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 applying his mind and without assigning any reasons,

(2015) 4 SCC 609

especially taken cognizance on 21.08.2025 against the accused

and not against the offences through cognizance order, passed in

C.C.No.1429 of 2025.

7. 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

(2013) 4 SCC 505

(2008) 2 SCC 492

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 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

(2008) 17 SCC 157

be an order reflecting application of mind by the Presiding Officer

while taking cognizance and issuing process.

10. 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

considered view that the congnizance order, passed in