Sangani Jagadeeshwar vs The State Of Telangana
2026 Latest Caselaw 188 Tel

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 188 Tel
Judgement Date : 31 March, 2026

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Sangani Jagadeeshwar vs The State Of Telangana 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.4676 of 2026

                          Date: 31.03.2026

Between:

Sangani Jagadeeshwar and two others
                                                        ..Petitioners

                                AND

The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Hyderabad,
Through Subedari Police Station,
and another
                                                       ...Respondents

                             ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused

Nos.2 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2064 of 2023

on the file of the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at

Hanumakonda.

2. Heard Mr.K.Bhanu Prasad, learned Senior Counsel representing

Mr.K.Sai Sri Harsha, learned counsel for the petitioners 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 by using rubber stamp. 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.

(2015) 4 SCC 609

(2013) 4 SCC 505

(2008) 2 SCC 492

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 criminal

trial cannot be on the basis of cryptic orders and it should be an order

(2008) 17 SCC 157

reflecting application of mind by the Presiding Officer while taking

cognizance and issuing process.

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 III Additional Judicial