Quashed

Naresh Buggarapu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Sept 2026CRLP/14569/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 582 of the BNS 2023, the High Court of Telangana disposed of the matter at the admission stage. The court held that the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance mechanically by a cryptic docket order without recording satisfaction or applying mind to the prima facie case. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court concluded that issuing summons to face a trial is a serious matter requiring recorded reasoning. Consequently, the docket order was quashed, and the Magistrate was directed to take cognizance afresh. The petitioners were dispensed from notice regarding the defacto complainant due to the early stage of proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The docket order passed by the Judicial Magistrate is quashed. The Magistrate is directed to take cognizance afresh and proceed with the matter.

Naresh Buggarapu Vs The State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³³⁰³¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEIVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 14569 OF 2026

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Naresh Buggarapu, S/o. Venkanna, Age. 30 years, Occ. Loco Pilot, R/o. Pulluru Village, Garla Mandal, Mahabubabad District.

¶9

Buggrapu Venkanna, S/o. Bhushaiah, Aged 60 years, Occ. Farmer, R/o. Pulluru Village, Garla lvlandal, Mahabubabad District.

¶10

Buggarapu Ramesh, S/o. Venkanna, Age. 35 years, Occ. Postal Employee, R/o. Pulluru Village, Garla Mandal, Mahabubabad District.

¶11

...Petitioners/Accused No.Al to A3

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶14

... Respondent

¶15

Buggarapu Ramya, Wo. Naresh, Age. 25 years, Caste. Munnurukapu, Occ Household, R/o H.No,3-7-335/45, Pumping Well Road, Khammam Town.

¶16

...RespondenUDefacto Complainant

¶17

Petition under Section 582 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the charge sheet in C.C. No.2422 of 2026 dated 25.05.2026 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile Court at Khammam arising out of FIR No.353/2025, Uls.85, 351(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS, Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act of WPS Khammam for the alleged offences against the PetitionersiAccused No.1 to 3 and quash the proceedings thereon.

¶18

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2026

¶19

Petition under section 582 of B.N.s s. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may ne pleaseJ to grant stay of all further proceedings including the appearince of petitioners/Accused No.l to 3 in c.c. No.2422 of 2026 dated 25.05.2026 on the fite of the Judicial Magistrate of First class special Mobile court at Khammam arising out oi ilR No 353/2025, U/s 85, 381(2) rtw 3(5) of BNS, Sec. 3 and 4 of Dp Act of WpS Khammam for the aleged offences against the petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 pending disposal of this criminal petition.

¶20

-^{This Petitroncoming on for hearing, upon perusingthe Memorandumof Grounds} of criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumentJof sri K Buchi Babu, eovocate for the Petitioners and sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public Prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No1. and none appeared for ihe Respondent No.2

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14569 of 2026

¶25

CNR.No. HBHCO10605562026

¶26

Date: 08.09.2026

¶27

Between:

¶28

Naresh Buggarapu and two others

¶29

..Petitioners

¶30

AND

¶31

The State of Telangana, and another

¶32

..Respondents

¶33

ORDER

¶34

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused

¶35

Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2422 of 2026

¶36

on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile

¶37

Court at Khammam.

¶38

Heard Mr.K.Buchi Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. I

¶39

With the consent of both the learned counsel, the criminal

¶40

petition is disposed of at the admission stage on the ground that even

¶41

¶42

according to the leamed counsel for the petitioners, the matter before the leamed trial Court has not yet ripened for the tria1. In view of the same, notrce in respect of respondent No.2ldefac'to complainant is dispensed r," ith

¶43

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitroners, submitted that the learned Magistrate, without recording satisfaction. has taken cognizance against the petitioners and issued summons mcchirnically and passed cryptic docket order. Therefore, the docket order. passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be quashed

¶44

Learncd ..\dditional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submissions made by the leamed counsel for the petitioners.

¶45

Having considered the submissions made by the respective parties and aficr perusal ofthe material available on record, it reveals that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance, without recording satisfaction against the accused and not against the olfences, through docket order.

¶46

¶47

It is very much relevant to mention^{that tn Sunil Bharati Mittal}

¶48

v. Central Bureau of^{Investigationt the Hon'ble Supreme Courtheld} that the order of issuing^{process to accusedto face criminaltrial is a} serious issue. Such summoning^{cannot be done on mere askingand} the Court has to record^{reasons for summoning a person'ln GHCL} Employees Stock Option Trust^{v. India Infoline Limitet, the} Hon'ble Apex Court found^{fault with the orderof the Magistratein} issuing summons when the^{Magistrate has not recorded his} satisfaction about the^{prima facie caseagainst the accused. In Chief} Enforcemnet Officer v.^{Videocon International Limited3,the} Hon'ble Supreme Court while^{discussingthe expression'cognizance'} held that in criminal law^{'cognizance' meansbecoming awareof and} the word used with^{respect to Courtor a Judge initiating proceedings} in respect ofan offence.^{Takingcognizancewould involve application} of mind by the^{Magistrate to the suspectedcommissionof an offence'} The Hon'ble Supreme Court^{in Sunil BharatiMittal's case (Supra),}

¶49

further held as follows:

¶50

" Sine Qua Non for taking cognizance of the^{offenceis the applicationof} mind bj the Magistrole^{an(lhis satisfqctton thattheallegations, fproved'}

¶51

1 (201s) 4 scc 609

¶52

'z^{(2013)4 scc 5os} 3 (2008) 2 scc 492

¶53

¶54

would Lrnslitute dn offence It is, lherefore, inlperLtne that on a complaint ot'on a polrce report, the Magistrete is t,t_tund to consi(ler the question as to whether thc same cliscloses commission ofun offence and is required to.lbrm strclt on opinion in lhis respect ll/hen ht does so and decides to issue pntcess. he shell be suid to haye tdken cognizdnce. At the .stage of totiinc cog tzance, thc only considerqtion before the Court remdins to tonsider .jucliciously whether the muterial on which the prosecution lroposcs to prosecule the accused brings out a prima faue case or t10t.

¶55

8. In Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal and anothera,

¶56

it is held as lbllrws:

¶57

''.\te"artheless. it i.; nall settled thq.t beforc a Mtgtl;trate can be sctid ro /.ay: tdke coLni:once of an offence, it is tmperatit,a that he must hove rqket notice oI the accusations and applted his mind to the allegutions nwde in tlrc complaint or in the police reporl or the informutiot rcceived lron L! source other than a police report, as the cuse nlat l,L, oncl thc nateriol rtled therewith. lt nacds httle emphasis thot ir ts ot iv t hen the .Vagistrate applies his nintl and is satislied thut the allt:gatrns. ti proved, u,ould constitute utt of.lenc.e aud dicides to rnitiatt'pro,:eedings utalnst the alleged offender, thot it .an be positively sktled that lk' hd.\ teke cognizance of the offente. Cognizance is in regard to tl:t, ollence untl not the o/fender. "

¶58

In vieu, of the obsen,ations and directions of the Hon,ble

¶59

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 o, the basis of cryptic orders and it should be an order reflecting applicirtion of mind by the presiding officer while taking cognizance alld issuing process.

¶60

4 (2oo}) 17 scc ts7

¶61

For the foregoing reasons and in view of the^{principles laid}

¶62

down by the Hon'ble^{Apex Court in the judgments citedsupra,and}

¶63

without going into the other grounds, this Court^{is of the considered} view that the cognizance order is liable to be^quashed and accordingly quashed. The leamed Magistrate is directed to take cognizance afresh

¶64

and to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law

¶65

1 1. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.

¶66

Pending miscellaneous applications, ifany, shall stand closed.

¶67

Sd/. B. REKHA RANI ASSIS NT REGISTRAR

¶68

//TRUE COPY//

¶69

E ION OFFICER