Dhara Anil Shreyas Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF^SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{J SREENIVAS RAO}

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 14577 OF²⁰²⁶

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dhara Anil Shreyas, S/o. D B Anil^{Kumar, Age.24 years, Occ Student,R/o} H No 37-91/13, Plot No.1O4B JJ Nagar,^{Neredmet, Malkajgiri[VandalMedchal-} It/alkajgiri District.

¶9

...Petitioner/Accused No.2

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Through SHO, P.S.^Shamirpet, Cyberabad Commrssionerate, Rep. by its^{P u b} lic'Prosecutor,^{High Court for} the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶12

V. Chandra Shekar, Sub-lnspector of^{Police,PS, Shamirpet,} Cyberabad C omm issionerate, l,4ed cha^{l-ltzl aI kajgi ri D istrtct.}

¶13

..Respondents

¶14

Petition under sectron 528 of B N.S S^{praying thatin the circumstances statedin} the [Vlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition, the High Court may be pleasedto} quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 2327 of 2023 on the file of^{the Principal Junior} Civil Judge-Cum-VllAdditional Judrcial It4agistrate^{First Class at l\rledchal,lVledchal-} Malkajgiri District, agarnst the PetitioneriAccused^{No.2 in the interest of justice.}

¶15

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026

¶16

Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S S.^praying thatⁱⁿ the^{circumstances statedin} the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court^{may be pleased to} grant interim stay of all further proceedings including appearance of^the Petrtioner/Accused No.2 in C C No. 2327 ol 2023 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Vll Addational Judicial [r/agistrate First Class at [/edchal, l/edchalI\4alkajgiri District in the interest of^justice, pendrng disposal of the above criminal petition.

¶17

This Petrtron ccmrng on for hearrng. r,rpon perusing the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Crrnrrnai Pettt on and upon hearing the arguments of lt/ls. Archana. learned counsel representrng Srr S Surender Reddy Advocate for the Petrtroner and Sri J thender Rao Veera'nalla learned Add tionaL Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents.

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT TIYDERABAD

¶20

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO}

¶21

CRIMTNAL PETITI^{ON No.14577 of 2026}

¶22

CNR.No. HBHC010609652026 Date: 08.09.2026

Between

Dhara Anil Shreyas

..Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana, and^another

¶28

...Respondents

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This Criminal Petition^{hasbeen hled by the petitioner/accused}

¶31

No.2 seeking to^quash the^{proceedingsin C.C.No'2327of 2023 on the} file of the Principal Junior^{Civil Judge-cum-VllAdditionalJudicial} Magistrate First Class at^{Medchal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District'}

¶32

Heard Ms.Archana, learned counsel representing^{Mr.S'Surender}

¶33

Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents.

¶34

With the consent of both the learned counsel, the criminal

¶35

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

¶36

-

¶37

2

¶38

according to the leamed counsel for the petitioner, the matter before the leamed trial Courl has not yet ripened for the trial. In view of the same, notice in respect of respondent No.2ldefacto complainant is dispensed rl ith

¶39

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the learned Magistrate, u ithout recording satisfaction, has taken cognizance against the petitioner and issued summons mechanically and passed cryptic docket order. Therefore, the docket sr(sr passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be quashed

¶40

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submissions made by the leamed counsel for the petitioner

¶41

l{aving considered the submissions made by the respective parties and after pcrusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the learned Nlagistrate has taken cognizance, without recording satisl'action against the accused and not against the offences,^through dockct older

¶42

7 . It is very much relevant to^{mentionthat in Sunil Bharati Mittal} v. Central Bureau of Investigatiozr^{the Hon'ble Supreme Court held} that the order of issuing^{process to accusedto facecriminaltrial 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 order of the Magistrate in} issuing summons when the Magistrate has^{not recorded his} satisfaction about the^{prima facie caseagainst the accused. In Chief} Enforcemnet OfJicer v. Videocon International Limitei,^the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the expression^'cognizance' held that in criminal law^{'cognizance'meansbecomingawareof and} the word used with respect to Court^{or a Judge initiating proceedings} in respect ofan offence. Taking cognizance^{would involve application} of mind by the Magistrate^{to the suspectedcommissionof an offence.} The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharati Mittal's^{case (Supra),} further held as follows:

¶43

"Sine Qua Non for tdking cognizunce of the offence is the application of mind by the Magtstrate^und his satisfdction that the allegations, ifproved, 1 (201s) 4 scc 609

¶44

'Z^{(2013) 4 scc5os} 3 (zoo8) 2 scc 492

¶45

!-

¶46

4

¶47

wou.hl Lor\titutt un offence. It is, therelore, imperatite that on e compl,:titll ,tr otr u p,tlttc report, the Magistrarc is bound tct consider lhe queslton u.\ to tvhather tlrc -sonle discloses comntis:;ir.tn of an offence anel is requirctl ttt ft.tnn such un opinion in th6 respect. Wen lrc does so and deciclc: to t\Lt( pro.css, he shall bc said to hale taken cognizance. At the stage t)l t(.kitlg cctgrti:unce. the only consideration beJbre the Court retnoinr to c,nsidar jrdrciously rhether the muteriql on which the proseLLttion propostli t0 pro.\ecule the uccused brings ttul a prima facie cqsc or not.

¶48

8. ln Fakhruddin Ahmatl v. State of Uxaran<'hal and anothera,

¶49

it rs held as fbllows:

¶50

',Ve cr l/rc1c'sr it i.; tell settled that befbre a Mrrytstrate con be sttid to hn htkcn coelizltnLe ofan o/fence, it i.\ inlperatiyc that he musl hoye r, cn notict' of Lhe accu.sotions and applied his mind to the ollegutiotrs ruade itt the compleint or in the police report or the

¶51

tn-/brmtttron n,ceit'ccl fron u JoLtrcc other thqn u police teport, as tlrc Lq.te ni^ b,-. dntl tht ftlqterial filed therewith It needs little emphasis thtt it i; ont.r then tlte tlagistrqte upplies his mind qnd is safisrted thdt thc allLq,th tn.t, il pntyed. vould consliute an ofiance and decides to initiue proL eerlings agautst the ullegetl olfender. thqt it cdn be positive$' stqted thut he hqs tuke'tt cognizetnce of the o./fence. Cognizance is in regard to th,, olfante dnLl not the olJ'ender. "

¶52

[n viet, of the observations and directions of the Hon'ble

¶53

Supremc Courl in the judgments referred to supra, the act of issuing process of sumrn0ning the accused to face criminal trial is a serious issue and such or(lers directing summons to a person to face criminal trial cannot be on the basis of crlptic orders and it should be an order reflecting application of mind by the Presiding Officer while taking

¶54

cognizance and issring process

¶55

o (2008) l7 scc 157

¶56

5

¶57

For the foregoing reasons^{and in view of the principles laid} down by the Hon'ble^{Apex Courtin the judgments cited supra, and} 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 and to^{proceed with the matter, in accordance} with law.

¶58

I l. Accordingly, the criminal^{petitionis disposedof.}

¶59

Pending miscellaneous applic-ations,^{if any, shallstand closed.}

¶60

SD/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGIST

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum Vll Additional dicjal Magistrate First Class at l/edchal, IVledcha l-l/lalkalg iri District. (with records if any)

¶65