This common order disposed of two criminal petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It set aside docket orders where the magistrates took cognizance without expressly applying their mind to the facts, noting the apparent civil nature of the complaints.
Docket orders dated 30.03.2021 and 31.03.2021 were set aside; criminal petitions disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[32s1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.8810 0F 2021 an d20 oF 2022
CRL.P.No.8 I 10 0F 2021: Between:
Hari Sreedhar, S/o. Hari Subba Rao, aged 53 years, occ. Advocate, plot No. 210, B-Block, Kavuri Hills, Hyderabad-35
...PETITIONERYPETITON ER
AND
(Respondehts g to 5 are only profarma parties to this petition)
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
Petition under section 4g2 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in cc No.'r I 1 6 or 2021 pending on the fire of the XVI Additionar Metropolitan Magistrate court, cyberabad at Rajendranagar against the petitioner.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition unde S;eclron 482 of Cr.P.C praying thal in 11e circumstances stated ir the [Vemor rrdum of Grounds of Criminal Petition. :lr,: High Court may be pleased to grant st,ay of all furtherproceedings including :: ppearance of the petitionr:r in CC No. 116 o'( 2021 on the f ile of the XVI Ad(Lition.rl Metropolitan [\rlagistrate Court, Cy reracad at Rajendranagar, Ranga Redd1,t.)istrict.
CRlMll{AL PETITIfN NO: 20 OF 2022
Betweerr:
Hari Sreedhar, Silo. Hari Subba Rao, aged 53 years. Occ.r\dv:cate, Plot No 210, B-BIock,K rvrri Hills, Hyderabad-33
...PETITI C NEFI/PETITIONER
AND
(Respondent I os.3 to 8 are only Profarma Parties to this petition)
...RESPONDEN"]'S/RESPONDENTS
Petition under Sit-.clion 1482 of Cr.P.C praying that in,ire r;ircumstances stated in the fvlemora dum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the lligh Court may be pleased lo quash the rroceedings in CC No. 95 of 202'1 pendirrgr on the file of the
i i
I I
special Judicial First classMagistrate court for Excise cases,Hyderabad against thepetitioner.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 482 of CI.P.Cpraying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandumof Grounds of Criminal Petition,the HighCourt may be pleased to grant stay of all furtherproceedings including appearance ofthe petitioner in CC No. 95 ol 2021 on the file of the Special JudicialFirst Class Magistrate Court for Excise Cases,Hyderabad.
These Petitions coming on for hearing, uponperusingthe Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitionand upon hearingthe argumentsof Sri Dasi Ramesh, Advocate for the Petitionersin both Criminal Petitions and the Public Prosecutor(TG) on behalf of theRespondent No.1in both Criminal Petitions and of Sri C. Ram Prasad,Advocatefor the RespondentNo.2 in both Criminal Petitions.
The Court made the following:COMMON ORDER
THE {ONOURABLE SRI ]USTICE K.SUREI'IT'ER
CRIMINAI PETITION Nos.881O OF 2021 AND::0 Ot 2022 (:oMMON Ot ''qEB: (:RIMI NAL F ETITION No.8810 OF 2021
This Cr rrinal Petition is filed under Section 482 tl' the Code of Criminal Proc rlure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by tlre, prtitionerIccused No.1 to quash the proceedings against him ir(:.C.No.1116 of 2021 per crng on the file of XVI Additional l'letropolitan Nlagistrate, C,oerabad at Rajendranagar, filed for tl'e tffences punishable un ler liections 420, 417, 478, 423, 464, 43i;, 4rt9, 469, 477, 193,20,, 209, 120-4 and 506 read with 34 of .'rdian Penal Code.
CRIMINAL P :TITION No.2 o oF 2022
This Cri rinal Petition is filed under Section 482 cf lhe Code of C'iminal Procr dure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by ther petitionerA,:cused No.5 o quash the proceedings against him in C C.ltlo.95 of 2021 pending on the file of Special Judicial First Cla:;:; Magistrate Court for Excis : Cases, Hyderabad, filed for the offencer:; punishable under Sectionr 420, 417,418, 423, 464,465,468,4e9, 4lL, 193, 2(\7,209,120- \ and 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Ccrle.
2
1
Begum, rryitness No.2 Nazeerul Quadri Sajid, wi1 rt:rss No.3 tvl0hd.r ousr: Khan. They disclosed aprinra fac e case for the off ,n,:e U/S. 420, 468, 471, l20B r/ur l1 of IPC against the respondent Nos.2 to 5. Hence, r:s;porrdent Nos.2 t 5i i.e., Hari Sridhar, Smt. Chand Sulthar;,, Ivlohd. Amjad, Smt. Sun'itra Wo. Rama Murthy are ;rrrayed as accusec No.l to 4. Taken on file as C.C.No.111rr/,1021 for the offt rce U/S. 420, 468, 471, 1208 rlw 34 11,1. against accusec No.1 to 4. Issue summons to accused Nl:r. 1 to 4. Call on tB 07.2021 on payment of process fee."
In Crin nal Petition No.20 of 2022, the dockrt orcer dated 31.03.2021 i C..C.No.95 of 2OZlpassed by the Specirl lucicial First Slass Magisl.ate Court for Excise Cases, Hyderat,arl, reads as
bllows:
l;. Prime zcie, the orders of the learned Magistratr: (rre contrary, irs law laid( lwn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharti ,t4itthal Us. :entral Bureau of Investigationl in Crirninal Appeal trlos.34 to 3 ,rf 2015 dated 09.01.2015, wherein it is held as
lollows:
'12{)l5l4 Supr.-n, ( ,)uCases fi09
4
"48. Sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offence is the application of mind by the Magistrate and his satisfaction that the allegations, ifproved, would constitute an offence. It is, therefore, imperative that on a complaint or on apolice 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 issueprocess, he shall be said to have taken cognizance. At the stage of taking cognizance, the only consideration before the couft remains to consider judiciously whether the material on which the prosecution proposes to prosecute the accused brings out a prima facie case or not."
"Nevertheless before a Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offente, it is imperative that he must have taken notice of accusations and applied his mind to allegations made in complaint or in police report or information received from a source other than a police report, as the case may be, an material filed therewith - It is only when the Magistrate applies his mind and is satisfied that 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."
and the Court taking cognizance cannot order summoning of the
'? 1zoos1tz SupremeCourr Cases 15?
5
\ I
I I
accused to f r:e(-riminal trial without giving any reasc r s. The order taking cogni ance though not required to be elaborat€r shculd reflect that the [v'la( strate had applied his mind to the facts c,l'thr: case and had taken cc anizance of the offerrce.
.f!-
6
11 Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions are disposed of.
Miscellaneous applicationspending, if any, shall standclosed.
Sd/.N.SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Qo
SECTION OFFICER
To,
gbr
HIGH COURT
DATED:231021i 023
COMIION ORE ER
--:::--
,/i/ ;, "1 r rE S I,,11. ,(
)
t,
7 l{AIl 2[23
.:,
..<br>
CRLP.Nos.881r) of 2021and 20 of 2022
DISPCISING OF THE BOTH CRIMINAL PETTTIONS
(
M
b\z t
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the docket orders of the lower courts took cognizance without applying their mind to the facts.
Whether the complaints filed by the Respondent No. 2 are civil in nature.
Whether the proceedings against the petitioner in the two criminal cases should be quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. CBIFollowed¶62
Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Crim. Appeal Nos. 34 to 36 of 2015
Fakruddin Ahmad Vs State of UttaranchalFollowed¶67
Fakruddin Ahmad Vs State of Uttaranchal
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Hari Sreedhar
The State of Telangana
S.KSURENDER
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
