Bollepalli Ramesh vs The State Of Telangana
2026 Latest Caselaw 76 Tel

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 76 Tel
Judgement Date : 26 March, 2026

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Bollepalli Ramesh vs The State Of Telangana on 26 March, 2026

 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                 AT HYDERABAD

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.4347 of 2026

                         Date: 26.03.2026

Between:

Bollepalli Ramesh
                                                       ..Petitioner

                                  AND

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

                             ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused

seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.310 of 2024 on the file of

the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manuguru, Bhadradri

Kothagudem District.

2. Heard Mr.Rudra Venkat Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner

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 petitioner, 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned

Magistrate, without recording satisfaction and without assigning any

reasons, has taken cognizance against the petitioner on 12.07.2024 and

issued summons mechanically and passed cryptic docket order.

Therefore, the docket order dated 12.07.2024 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 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 docket order dated 12.07.2024.

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 dated 12.07.2024 passed by the Judicial