AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.5149 of 2019 on the file of X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, for the offence under Sections 341, 447 and 427 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC').
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the order dated 20.07.2026, he sent personal notice to respondent No.2 and filed proof of service vide Memo in USR No.94983 of 2026 on 05.08.2026. According to him, notice sent by him was delivered to respondent No.2 on 23.07.2026. In spite of service of notice, respondent No.2 has not chosen to enter appearance. Hence, this Court is not having any option except to proceed with the matter on merits.
Heard Mr.S.Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused for the offence under Sections 341, 447 and 427 r/w 34 of IPC and issued summons on 18.11.2019 without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons and the same is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation1 and Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal and another2.
The said submission has not been opposed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the learned Magistrate on 18.11.2019 without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons had taken cognizance and issued summons to the petitioner and other accused. Therefore, the docket order dated 18.11.2019 passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be quashed.
It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittal (supra), 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 Court has to record reasons for summoning a person. In GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Limited3, 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 case against the accused. In Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Limited4, 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 of an offence. Taking cognizance would involve application of mind by the Magistrate to the suspected commission of an offence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharati Mittal’s case supra, further held as follows:
“Sine Qua Non for taking cognizance of the offence is the application of mind by the Magistrate and his satisfaction that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence. It is, therefore, imperative that on a complaint or on a police 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 issue process, he shall be said to have taken cognizance. At the stage of taking cognizance, the only consideration before the Court remains to consider judiciously whether the material on which the prosecution proposes to prosecute the accused brings out a prima facie case or not.”
In Fakhruddin Ahmad (supra), it is held as follows:
“Nevertheless, it is well settled that before a Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offence, it is imperative that he must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the complaint or in the police report or the information received from a source other than a police report, as the case may be, and the material filed therewith. It needs little emphasis that it is only when the Magistrate applies his mind and is satisfied that the 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. Cognizance is in regard to the offence and not the offender."
In view of the observations and directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to supra, the act of issuing process for summoning an accused to face a criminal trial is a serious issue and such orders directing the issuance of summons to a person to face criminal trial cannot be passed on the basis of cryptic orders and it should be an order reflecting due application of mind by the Presiding Officer while taking cognizance and issuing process.
For the foregoing reasons and in view of the principles laid 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 dated 18.11.2019 in C.C.No.5149 of 2019 on the file of X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. The learned Magistrate is directed to take cognizance afresh and to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.