Ramavaram Chandra Shekar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana
2026 Latest Caselaw 138 Tel

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 138 Tel
Judgement Date : 30 March, 2026

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Ramavaram Chandra Shekar Reddy 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.1008 of 2026

                          Date: 30.03.2026
Between:
Ramavaram Chandra Shekar Reddy
                                           ...petitioner/accused No.1
                               AND
The State of Telangana, Through Raidurgam Police Station,
Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Hyderabad for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another
                                                   ...respondents

                             ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1

seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1928 of 2021, pending

on the file of the XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, for the offences punishable under

Sections 353, 447, 427, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

2. Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel

representing Smt. Kamatam Rajitha, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

3. Learned Senior Counsel submits that pursuant to the order

dated 30.01.2026, they sent personal notice to respondent No.2 and

filed proof of service vide USR No.17722 of 2026. According to

him, notice sent by him was delivered to respondent No.2 on

05.02.2026. He enclosed the postal track consignment. In spite of

service of notice, respondent No.2 has not chosen to enter

appearance.

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

on 27.04.2024 and issued summons to the petitioners 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

(2015) 4 SCC 609

on 27.04.2024 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.1928 of 2021.

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 cognizance order passed in C.C.No.1928 of