[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Smt. Guggilam Surya Kumari 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.4529 of 2026
Date:30.03.2026
Between:
Smt. Guggilam Surya Kumari
..Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor,
High Court Buildings,
Hyderabad rep. through W.P.S,
DD Hyderabad and another
...Respondents
ORDER
This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused
No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.7903 of 2022 on the
file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally,
Hyderabad.
2. Heard Mr.P.Srinivas Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner,
through video conference and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor 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 yet ripened for the trial. In view of the
same, notice in respect of respondent No.2/defacto complainant is
dispensed with.
4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the
petitioners, submitted that the learned Magistrate, without recording
satisfaction and without assigning any reasons, has taken cognizance
against the petitioners and issued summons mechanically and passed
cryptic docket order. Therefore, the docket order passed by the learned
Magistrate is liable to be quashed.
5. Learned Additional 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.
7. It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittal
v. Central Bureau of Investigation1 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,
(2015) 4 SCC 609
(2013) 4 SCC 505
(2008) 2 SCC 492
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 be an order
reflecting application of mind by the Presiding Officer while taking
cognizance and issuing process.
(2008) 17 SCC 157
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 is of the considered
view that docket order passed by the learned XIII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.7903 of
2022 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 a week
b/o
vsl
