AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the docket order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the learned VIII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal, taking cognizance against accused Nos.1 to 7/respondent Nos.2 to 8 for the offences punishable under Section 85 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNS'), and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, 'DP Act').
Heard Mr.G.Satyanarayana Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.
Notice in respect of respondent Nos.2 to 8 is dispensed with solely on the ground that the petitioner, who is the de-facto complainant, has filed the present Criminal Petition contending that the learned trial Court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offences and the same is contrary to the settled principles of law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the de-facto complainant in C.C.No.2658 of 2025 and the learned trial Court, on 06.11.2025, erroneously took cognizance against accused Nos.1 to 7/respondent Nos.2 to 8 for the offences under Section 85 r/w Section 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. The trial Court ought to have taken cognizance of the offences and not against the accused, 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, GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Limited2, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Limited3 and Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal and another4. Unless the cognizance order dated 06.11.2025 is quashed and necessary directions are issued to the trial Court to take cognizance afresh in accordance with law, the petitioner will be put to great hardship.
He further submitted that there are specific allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the final report that respondent Nos.2 to 8 acted dishonestly and are liable for prosecution for the offence under Section 318 of the BNS. However, the trial Court has not taken cognizance of the offence under Section 318(4) of the BNS. He therefore requested this Court to issue necessary direction to the trial Court to reconsider the material available on record and determine whether respondent Nos.2 to 8 are liable for prosecution for the offence under Section 318 of the BNS.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that, insofar as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned cognizance order passed by the learned trial Court on 06.11.2025 is contrary to law is concerned, he fairly submitted that the cognizance order is contrary to law and is liable to be quashed. Insofar as the other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, he submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to seek a direction to the trial Court to take cognizance of the offence under Section 318 of the BNS, as it is the prerogative of the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences. However, he submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to raise his grievance at the stage of framing of charges.
Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner is the de-facto complainant in C.C.No.2658 of 2025. The trial Court took cognizance against respondent Nos.2 to 8 for the offences under Sections 85 r/w Section 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act through docket order dated 06.11.2025. It is relevant to extract the docket order dated 06.11.2025:
"This case is taken cognizance against the accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offences punishable under Section 85 r/w 3(5) BNS, Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. Issue summons to accused. Call on 15.04.2026."
The trial Court has the power to take cognizance of the offences and not against the accused. The impugned cognizance order passed by the trial Court is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred to supra. Hence, the impugned cognizance order dated 06.11.2025 is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed.
The trial Court is directed to take cognizance afresh in accordance with law, insofar as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the manner of taking cognizance is concerned. Insofar as the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking a direction to the trial Court to reconsider the material available on record and determine whether the ingredients of Section 318 of the BNS are attracted or not is concerned, this Court is not inclined to adjudicate the said issue at this stage. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to agitate her rights in accordance with law, as and when the cause arises.
Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.