Single judge of Telangana High Court quashed a Magistrate order in a criminal case due to lack of reasoned findings, directing the authority to record reasons if it wishes to proceed against the accused.
criminal petition allowed; docket order dated 09.05.2022 set aside; Magistrate directed to take cognizance only if giving appropriate reasons.
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 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6865 OF 2023
Between:
...PETITIONERYACCUSED No.1 to 2 AND
...RESPONDENT NO.1/RESPONDENT
...RESPONDENT NO.2/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.Cpraying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of petitioner in C.C. No. 388 ot 2022 on the file of the learned 1st Addl. Junior Civil Judge-CumFirst Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Mancherial andquash the same.
l.A. NO: 1OF 2023
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.Cpraying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to stay all further proceedings including.the appearance ofpetitioner in C.C. No. 3BB of 2022 on the file of the learned 1st Addl. Junior Civil Judge-CumFirst Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Mancherial in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
This Petitior coming on for hearing, upon perusinq 'l'e l/emorandum of Grounds of Crir-r ral Petrtion and upon hearinly the argJments of Sri M.V.HANUIVANTI--l FIAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and he P -iblic Prosecutor (TG) on behalf ol tl e Rr:spondent No.'1 and None AppeareJ br the Respondent No. 2.
The Court made thr following: ORDER
,//
THE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6865 OF 2o23
ORDER:
This Criminal Peiition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is hled by the petitioners - Accused Nos.l & 2 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.388 of 2022 pending on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-First Class AddI. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Mancherial. The offences alleged against them are punishable under Sections 447, 427, 29O, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2
f]asecl ou h,r sai<l con-rplair-rt. the police have 1i ed the charge shcel ilgilir s accLlsed No. 1 and deleted thr: n:rrne of accused No.2
4 las,:, oIr the protest applicatiorr lilel tlre learned Magislral.r: r:-ssed the fbllou,ing docket orcer. d;rtr:cl t)9.O5.2022 as folk>rvs;
"l Icar-,1 lr L t--ris r:asc, PS CCO Naspur h:rv,r fiLCC ,tl)arije sbeet ag,irir::;t \ t ;Lnd dehtcd A2
lJporr tl. e szrtrre Lu,.1/t)clacto compla nant. ll.ed protcst pr. titi I n r( qrlestrng thc court to take cr>grriziu-rr l aqi inst A.2 also, irs A 2 is very much itrvolved in the offec.e. Ii!:cordcd tl.re stirter r( r: ol' Dclaclo Compltrinant. Pcrusr:d tlrr: r;rt,'rial on rccorrl e., lllR, rel)ort, stirtements of wi'ncs:;r sr t'tr:. From th('r:'p ,I' fiivcll irv LW. I to the police artrl -,att nal on rcr:o rd l'lrere appear-s sufllcient material to sfro,r thc prilna farc ie irr' clvcmert ol A2 also. Thercfore tllis C( ult i:; of the op rniorr l.hat thcrejs:r prLrnir facie casc agains .r.1 iLnd 42To Lhc g):tent (lf deletion of ,A2 the protest tt:lition is all,rrvt:rl. I [er-rcc takr:n cof<ntzancc for tt e olfrrr --t:s undcr sc( tio r '.47, 42',',290, 506 r/w 34 of IPC rr1:;airLsl \1 and A2 . lrla ,' br: rt:gistcrcd as CC.No.3t38 oi :)1,22. Issue sLl nllTt( )l s to A1 irncl A2 t;all on 2O.O6.2O2t'."
3
Sunll Bhartt Mitthal Vs. Central Bureau of Inrrcstigationl
1n Criminal Appeal Nos.34 to 37 of 2015, dated 09.01.2015, wherein it is held as follows:
"52. A wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of process ald it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into Court merely because a complaint has been filed. If a prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction.
I<.T.VtJdg Kumar and Others2 in Crl.A.No.22ll of 2OI4 dated, 14.lO.2Ol4, it is held as:
(2Or5) a Supreme Court Cases 609
2 2015) I Supreme Court Cases 788
4
4,,i.:.,#
r-e
"13. n lisrputabll,, judici;rl process shouJc not bc itn ir st;-L r c rt of oppression or needlcss har': :,-ntcr-rt.'l'hc c[)url r-lou d bc r:ircumspr:ct and judir:iorrs tr e>,ercising clisclr i rr ,ald sl-rould r ake all thc' relevzrr r ihcts iu-rd circLir r tr r-rr:es into considcration before issrrit-r 3 pror:ess It:st it u' ru d lre irn instrumcnt in thc han,l.; of priv.rte cr:mp la riLn: as vcndetta to harass the persons rrr:ed.ess11,.
)4.1 ; equallv rvcll settlcd that sumrnoning rr1 ,rn rrccuscd in a r'-i ninaj case is a serious matter ar.d the ,r-cle.- taking cogniz;: rr:: l;y tlrc Magistr:rtr: summoning the at r usr:d ntrrst rctlecl I ri,t he has appliect his mind to tt e far:ls tI' the cirse zrncl tlrr liiu, applicable thr:rr-'to. Section.1.82 ol I te lodc of Crimi; ri I l)r.)cedurc empo\.crs the High Coult t l r:xer-cisc its inirer', r.r po'vers to prever-rt abusc of thr: proc r..s (,f cor.lrt and tr 1:rsh li.rc proceerling institutcd on r:r,l:ltlaint bnt such ).wcr corrlcl be exr:rr:ised only in c:rses u.h:rc tl-rc co'.t.tp.rrj rt drtes not disclosc any offencc or is; rr xatious rtr oppress ",r. If thr: erllegations set out in thr: corn tltrinl do rrot conslrlr. c tLre olTcncc ol which cognizilnce ts l:L-:en by the Mrgislr', t( it is op('n to thc High Court to luiLsh tlrt: : amt: itr cxercisc tl pr;rvel Ut-rdcr Sectron 482."
5
giving any reasons and what prompted the accused to take cognizance on the basis of the facts of the case. Since the reasons are lacking in the order for taking cognizance of the offences and issuing summons, the said docket order, dated O9.O5.2O22 is set aside. However, this order will not preclude the learned Magistrate from taking cognizance by giving appropriate reasons.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
)
//TRUE COPY//
SD/-P.PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ab
SECTION OFFICER
To
PSK
HIGH COUR-"
DATED:26n', 12023
ORDER
CRLP.No.6865 of 2023
4i:;t ;;1 o
(: (
v
-) r tt Iiir 2t n
.J
\l .'/-
.i...
i
ALLOWING rHE CRIMINAL PETITIOT\t WITHOUT CI)STS.
I
L[-,:
I
ftw
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash proceedings where the Magistrate's order lacks reasons for taking cognizance.
Whether the deletion of accused names from charge sheet requires the issuance of a protest petition to summon them.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 2 enactments
IRIKILLA PURUSHOTHAM
NALLA SANJEEVA REDDY
THE STATE OF TELANGANA
PALLE RAJAMALLU
K. SURENDER
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
