[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Patlolla Ajay Kumar vs 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.4503 of 2026
Date: 30.03.2026
Between:
Patlolla Ajay Kumar
...petitioner/accused No.4
AND
State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Judicature and another
...respondents
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused
No.4, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.631 of 2022 on
the file of the XXV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at
Ibrahimpatnam, for the offences punishable under Sections
20(b)(ii)(A), and Section 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985.
2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 22.07.2022, without recording
satisfaction and without assigning any reasons. In view of the
same, notice in respect of respondent No.2 is dispensed with.
3. Heard Mr. A.H.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter
before the trial Court is not yet riped for trial and is at the stage of
examination. The learned Magistrate without recording satisfaction
and without assigning any reasons has taken cognizance on
22.07.2022 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 22.07.2022 against the accused and
not against the offences through cognizance order, passed in
C.C.No.631 of 2022.
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
(2013) 4 SCC 505
(2008) 2 SCC 492
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
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
(2008) 17 SCC 157
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 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 C.C.No.631
of 2022 on the file of the XXV Metropolitan Magistrate,
Cyberabad at Ibrahimpatnam, 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.
11. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
30.03.2026
Note:
Issue CC in one week
B/o
gnp
