Disposed

Elitam Satyam v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Sept 2026CRLP/14622/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 646 of 2025 for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The High Court quashed the cognizance order because the Magistrate had taken cognizance mechanically via a rubber-stamp cryptic docket order without recording satisfaction or assigning reasons. The matter was remanded for fresh cognizance in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

The cognizance order in C.C. No. 646 of 2025 was quashed; the Magistrate was directed to take cognizance afresh and proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

Elitam Satyam Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA}

¶3

AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEIVIBER IWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYSIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 14622 OF 2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

Elitam Satyam, S/o. Late Venkataiah Aged about 29 Years, Occ Private^job, R/o. H No. 4-45, Parveda Vrllage, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana.

¶10

Elrtam lVahender, S/o. Late Venkataiah Aged about 23 Years, Occ Private job, R/o H No. 4-45, Parveda Village, Shankarpally lVlandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana

¶11

..PETITIONERS/ACC USED

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Telangana, Rep By its high court PP. Station House Officer(SHO), Shankarpally Police Statron, Rangareddy District.

¶14

Elitam Jangaiah, S/o Yellaiah, Aged about 75 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. H No. 4-41, Parveda Village, Shankarpally lrlandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telanga na

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS

¶16

Petrtion under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt/lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.646 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class [,4agistrate, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District arising out of Crime No.1 31 of 2025 o Shankarpally Police Station, for the offence! punishable under Sections 329(3),324(4) reac with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, insofar as the petitionerslAl and A-2 are concerned, and consequently put an end to the proceedrngs agarnst the petitioners.

¶17

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026

¶18

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Crimrnal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C No.646 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class lvlagistrate, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, arising out of Crime No.131 ol 2025 of Shankarpally Police Station, insofar as the petitioners lA-1 and A-2 are concerned, pendrng disposal of the Crimrnal Petition.

¶19

¶20

This Petition co nrng on for hearing upon perusing the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Cr mrnal Pet tion and upon heanng the arguments of Srr BHARADWAJ REDDy lvor}lE Advocate for the Petitroner and sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Addl Public Pi-osecutor on behalf of the Respondent No 1 and none appeared on behalf of the Rt-.sponclent No 2

¶21

The Court made thc following: ORDER

¶22

IN THE IIIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14622 of 2026

¶25

CNR.No.HBH C010613092026

¶26

Date: 08.09.2026

¶27

Between:

¶28

Elitam Satyam and another

¶29

...Petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 AND

¶30

The State of Telangana and two others

¶31

...Respondents

¶32

ORDER

¶33

This Criminal^petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused

¶34

Nos.l and 2, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.64 6 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offences punishable under sections 223,329(3),324(4) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶35

Heard Mr. Bharadwaj Reddy Mothe, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶36

¶37

With thc consent of both the leamed counsel, the criminal petrtion is disposed o1'at the admission stage on the ground that even according to the leamed counsel for the petitioners, the matter before the learaed Trial^(-'ourt has not riped for the trial yet. In^view of the same, notice in respect of respondent No.3ldefacto complainant^is dispensed with

¶38

Upon pelusal of the record, it reveals that the^leamed Magistrate, rvilhout recol'ding^{satisfaction and rvithoutassigning any} reasons, has^{taken cognizance againstthe petitioners andissued} summons^{mechanicallyand passed- crypticdocket order by using} rubber stamp^{Theretbre,cognizanceorderpassed by the learned} Magistrate^{is liable Lo be quashed'}

¶39

L.eamed^{.A'tlditional PublicProsecutorhas not opposed the} submissionsmadebythelearnedcounselforthepetittoners.

¶40

Ilaving^{consideredthe submissionsmade by the respective} parties^{and after pcrusal o1'the material available on record'it reveals} that the^{learnecl Nlagistrate has taken cognizance'without recording} satisfaction^{and rvithout assigningany reasonsagainstthe accused and} not against^{the ollences, through the cognizance order'}

¶41

It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittal

¶42

v. Central Bureau of Investigationt 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 Cou( has to record reasons for summoning a person. In GHCL

¶43

Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Limilet, the Hon'ble Apex Court found fault with the order of the Magistrate in issuing surlmons when the Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction about the prima facie case against the accused. ln Chief Edorcemna Officer v. Videocon International Limitet, 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 ofan offence. Taking cognizance would involve application of mind by the Magistrate to the suspected commission of an offence.

¶44

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharati Mittal's case (Supra), further held as follows:

¶45

"Srnl ,Qu7 Non for taking cognizance of the ofence is the apptication of mind by the Magistrate ond his sqrisfariio, thii th" ,tt"go-,ir1i.";f p-""a,

¶46

1 (2015) 4 scc 609

¶47

'^{(2013) 4 scc505}

'^{(2008) 2 scc 492}

\j)oLtLl c(itlslitutc dn oJfence. [t is, therefore, imperative thqt on u compiaint rtr rn o prtlice report, the Magislrate i.s bound to consider the que.\lton u\ to wltcthLr the same discloses commissir.tn r.tf un offence und is required tt form such an opinion in this respect. Wen he does so^qnd clecidLs tu t.tsue l)roLe!'. he shall be saicl to have taken cognizance. Al the stcLge ctf rtking cogni;ance, the only consiclerqtion before the Court remotns rt) canr'id(r judiciously u,helher the material on \vhich the prose(Ltnotl l)roposcs ) prosecuta the accused brings oul a prima facie

¶52

8 Ln Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Llttaranchal and anothera,

¶53

it is held as follows

¶54

' Ncrertheless. it is well settled lhat before a Magistrate can be soid t,' lrutt tuken togni:ancc of an olfence, it is imperatire that he usl have tqket notice of the accltsations and applied his mind to the ullegotutn.' tod( in tlrc complaiw or i the police rep<.trt or lhe mfttrnatiot received from u source other than o police reporl, ds the cLtse ltiov ,r,^qnd the nlarerial filed therewith It needs little emphasis that it ls orly tht,t tht' ,l[egi:;lrate applies his mind and is satisfied thut the ollegot;ons. if provad. would constitute an olJbnce and dectdes to miliak pra:e(dingr Lryarnst the alleged offender, lhat it^(an be positivelv slatetl thdt lu hus lttken cagnizdnce of the of.fenc e. Cognizance is n regard tu thL ofknce and not the rffender-^"

¶55

9. In vierv (,f the observations and directions of the Hon'ble

¶56

Suprerne Court in the^{judgments referredto supra, the act of issuing} prooess of summoning the accused to^{face criminal trial is a serious} issue and such orders^{clirecting summonsto a personto facecriminal} trial cannot be on^{the basis of crptic orders and it should be an order} reflectingapplicalionol.mindbythePresidingofficerwhiletaking cognizance^{and issuing} Proc(]ss.

¶57

o (2oou) 17 scc 157 '

¶58

¶59

For the foregoing^{reasonsand in view of the principles laid}

¶60

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 the cognizance^{order is liableto be quashedand accordingly} quashed. The leamed^{Magistrate is directed to take cognizance afresh} and to proceed^{withthe matter,in accordancewith law'}

¶61

11 Accordingiy, the^{criminal petition is disposed of}

¶62

Pending miscellaneous^{applications,if any, shall stand closed}

¶63

SD/- T. SRINIVASA REDD\ ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶64

//TRUE COPY//

¶65

ECTION OFFICER

¶66

To,