Nila Karunakar vs The State Of Telangana
2026 Latest Caselaw 141 Tel

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 141 Tel
Judgement Date : 30 March, 2026

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Nila Karunakar 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.4517 of 2026

                         Date: 30.03.2026

Between:

Nila Karunakar and two others
                                                        ...Petitioners
                                AND

The State of Telangana rep by its Public Prosecutor,
Through Veldanda Police Station, Nagarkurnool District
High Court of Judicature of Telangana at Hyderabad and another

                                                      ...Respondents

                             ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused

Nos.1 to 3, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.293 of

2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at

Kalwakurthy.

2. Heard Mr.Mohd. Asifuddin, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor appearing 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 ripened for the trial yet. In

view of the same, notice in respect of respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

learned Magistrate, without recording satisfaction and without

assigning any reasons, has taken cognizance against the

petitioners on 23.06.2023 and issued summons mechanically and

passed cryptic docket order. Therefore, the docket order dated

23.06.2023 passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be

quashed.

5. Learned Assistant 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 dated 23.06.2023.

7. It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati

Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation 1 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 Limited2, 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 Limited3, 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:

(2015) 4 SCC 609

(2013) 4 SCC 505

(2008) 2 SCC 492

"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 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 dated 23.06.2023 passed by