[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10464 OF 2026 Between: 1. Syed Hameed Ali, S/o Late Syed Yousuf Ali, Aged about 38 years, Occ. lmambada, Yakutpura, Rein Bazar, Private Job, Rio H.No. 17-3-1821a11 , Hyderabad. 2. Syed Habeeb Ali, S/o Late Syed Yousuf Ali, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Private Job, R/o H.No. 17-3-1821a11, lmambada, Yakutpura, Rein Bazar, Hyderabad. ...Petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. 2. Syed Ahmed Ali, S/o Late Syed Yousuf Ali, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No. 17 -3-182/a11, lmambada, Yakutpura, Rein Bazar, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/Defacto Com plainants Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No. '1B60 of 2024 on the file of the Vll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad, and consequential order of taking cognizance as against the petitioners/ Accused No. 1 to 2. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners/ Accused No.1 & 2 in C.C.No.1 860 of 2024 on the file of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the main Crl.P. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearrng the arguments of Sri S.M.Saifullah, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE TIIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE J.SREENTVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.10464 of 2026 Date: 07.07.2026 Between: Syed Hameed Ali and another ..Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, and another ...Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1860 of 2024 on the file of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad, 2. Heard Mr.S.M.Saifullah, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l .

3. With the consent of both the leamed counsel, the criminal petition is disposed of at the admission stage on the ground that even 2 according to the learned counsei for the petitioners, the matter before the learned trial Court has not yet ripened for the trial. In view of the same, notice in respect of respondent No.2ldefacto complainant is dispensed with 4. During the course of hearing, leamed counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the learned Magistrate, without recording satisfaction, has taken cognizance against the petitioners on 26.02.2024 and issued summons mechanically and passed cryptic docket order. Therefore, the docket order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be quashed. 5. Leamed Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance, without recording satisfaction against the accused and not against the ofl'ences, through docket order dated 26.02.2024. J

7 . It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittal 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 Court has to record reasons for summoning a person. ln GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust y. India Infoline Limfte*,, 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. ln Chief Enforcemnet Of/icer v. Videocon International Limilef, 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharati Mittill's case (Supra), further held as follows: "Sine the offence is the applicution of Qua Non for taking cognizance rf mind by the Magistrdte and his safisrttction thdt the allegations, ifproved, 1 (2015) 4 scc 609 '3 (2013) 4 scc sos (2008) 2 scc 492 5

10. 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 is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. The leamed Magistrate is drrected to take cognizance afresh and to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law. 1 1. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. B.REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 6 SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Vll Additional Chief lvletropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Station House Officer, Madannapet Police Station, Hyderabad. 3 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad lourl 4 One CC to Sri S.M.Saifullah, Advocate IOPUCI E Two CD Copies 4L GNK/KA HIGH COURT DATED: 0710712026 .I F Y. o tl .t c ORDER \\ .t.l CRLP.No.10464 of 2026 !l $ DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION I 'lb \t1

[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10464 OF 2026 Between: 1. Syed Hameed Ali, S/o Late Syed Yousuf Ali, Aged about 38 years, Occ. lmambada, Yakutpura, Rein Bazar, Private Job, Rio H.No. 17-3-1821a11 , Hyderabad. 2. Syed Habeeb Ali, S/o Late Syed Yousuf Ali, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Private Job, R/o H.No. 17-3-1821a11, lmambada, Yakutpura, Rein Bazar, Hyderabad. ...Petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. 2. Syed Ahmed Ali, S/o Late Syed Yousuf Ali, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No. 17 -3-182/a11, lmambada, Yakutpura, Rein Bazar, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/Defacto Com plainants Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No. '1B60 of 2024 on the file of the Vll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad, and consequential order of taking cognizance as against the petitioners/ Accused No. 1 to 2. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners/ Accused No.1 & 2 in C.C.No.1 860 of 2024 on the file of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the main Crl.P. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearrng the arguments of Sri S.M.Saifullah, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE TIIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE J.SREENTVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.10464 of 2026 Date: 07.07.2026 Between: Syed Hameed Ali and another ..Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, and another ...Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1860 of 2024 on the file of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad, 2. Heard Mr.S.M.Saifullah, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l .

3. With the consent of both the leamed counsel, the criminal petition is disposed of at the admission stage on the ground that even 2 according to the learned counsei for the petitioners, the matter before the learned trial Court has not yet ripened for the trial. In view of the same, notice in respect of respondent No.2ldefacto complainant is dispensed with 4. During the course of hearing, leamed counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the learned Magistrate, without recording satisfaction, has taken cognizance against the petitioners on 26.02.2024 and issued summons mechanically and passed cryptic docket order. Therefore, the docket order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be quashed. 5. Leamed Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance, without recording satisfaction against the accused and not against the ofl'ences, through docket order dated 26.02.2024. J

7 . It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittal 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 Court has to record reasons for summoning a person. ln GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust y. India Infoline Limfte*,, 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. ln Chief Enforcemnet Of/icer v. Videocon International Limilef, 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharati Mittill's case (Supra), further held as follows: "Sine the offence is the applicution of Qua Non for taking cognizance rf mind by the Magistrdte and his safisrttction thdt the allegations, ifproved, 1 (2015) 4 scc 609 '3 (2013) 4 scc sos (2008) 2 scc 492 5

10. 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 is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. The leamed Magistrate is drrected to take cognizance afresh and to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law. 1 1. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. B.REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 6 SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Vll Additional Chief lvletropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Station House Officer, Madannapet Police Station, Hyderabad. 3 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad lourl 4 One CC to Sri S.M.Saifullah, Advocate IOPUCI E Two CD Copies 4L GNK/KA HIGH COURT DATED: 0710712026 .I F Y. o tl .t c ORDER \\ .t.l CRLP.No.10464 of 2026 !l $ DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION I 'lb \t1