K. Kishore Kumar Solanki vs The State Of Telanagana
2026 Latest Caselaw 182 Tel

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 182 Tel
Judgement Date : 31 March, 2026

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

K. Kishore Kumar Solanki vs The State Of Telanagana on 31 March, 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                AT HYDERABAD

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.4611 of 2026

                        Date: 31.03.2026

Between:

K.Kishore Kumar Solanki
                                                      ...Petitioner
                              AND

The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
at Hyderabad and another
                                                   ...Respondents

                            ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused,

seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1607 of 2025 on the

file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at

Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Mr.Parikshith Kutur, learned counsel for the

petitioner 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 petitioner, 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 is dispensed

with.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned

Magistrate, without recording satisfaction and without assigning

any reasons, has taken cognizance against the petitioner and

issued summons mechanically and passed cryptic docket order

on 22.02.2025. Therefore, the docket order 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 petitioner.

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 the docket order dated 22.02.2025.

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 22.02.2025 passed by