Boini Narayana vs The State Of Telangana
2026 Latest Caselaw 78 Tel

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 78 Tel
Judgement Date : 26 March, 2026

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Boini Narayana 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.4414 of 2026

                         Date: 26.03.2026

Between:

Boini Narayana and three others
                                    ...petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4

                               AND

The State of Telangana, Represented by the Public Prosecutor,
Telangana High Court, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad and
another

                                                      ...respondents

                             ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused

Nos.1 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.402 of 2024

pending on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate

at Husnabad, for the offences punishable under Section 427 read

with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

2. Heard Mr. A. Chandra Shaker, 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 riped for the trial yet. In

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

complainant is dispensed with.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended

that learned Magistrate had taken cognizance against the petitioner

and issued summons mechanically even without application of

mind and passed cryptic docket order dated 23.08.2024. He further

submitted that the learned Magistrate ought to have taken

cognizance against the offence only but not against accused.

Therefore, the docket order dated 23.08.2024 passed by the learned

Magistrate is liable to be quashed.

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

without applying his mind and without assigning any reasons,

especially taken cognizance against the accused and not against the

offences through docket order dated 23.08.2024.

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 Limited1, 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 2, 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 3, 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

(2008) 17 SCC 157

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.

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 docket order dated 23.08.2024 passed in