[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12590 OF 2026 Between: HVAC Salman Khan, S/o. Hakeem Khan, Aged about. 33 years, Occ. Consultant, R/o. H. No. 10-3-274lA,Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad. ...Petitioner/Accused AND 1 The State of Telangana, Humayun Nagar, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. 2 J. Srikanth, S/o Not Known to the Petitioner, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Sub-lnspector of Police, Police Station, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/De-facto Compl ainant 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 No.5B5 ol 2021quash the proceedings against the Petitioner / Accused in c.c. Nampally,pending on the file of the Vl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 2OF 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 the appearance of the Petitioner / Accused in C.i. ruo. SBS of 2021 pending on the flle of the Vl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the main criminal Petition in the interest of justice.

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri D Satya Veer, Advocate for the Petitioner and sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public prosecutor on behalf of Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE TIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENTVAS RAO CRIMTNAL PETITION No.12590 of2026 Date:05.08.2026 Between: Salman Khan .. Petitioner/accused AND The State ofTelangana and another ...Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.1, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No'585 of 2021 on the file of the Vl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally' Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 25(1)(b) of the lndian Arms Act, 1959. D.Satya Veer, learned counsel for the petitioner and2. Heard Mr. Additional Public ProsecutorMr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned for respondent No.l 2 3 With the consent of both the leamed counsel, the criminal petition rs disposed o1'at the adnrission stage on the ground that even accordinc to thc lealncd counsel for the petitioner, the matter before the learned friirl Courr has not riped for the trial yer. In view of the same. notice in respec[ of rcspondent No.2lctefacto complainant is dispensed with.

4. Upon ltcrusal ol' the record, it reveals that the leamed Magistrate. ri rtht>ut recorcling satisfaction and without assigning any reasons, has taken cognizanec against the petitioner and issued summons rnechanically and passed crfptic docket order on 1g.01.2021 by using rubber stamp. Therefore, cognizance order passed by the learned Magistrare is liable to be quashed. 5. Leamed .\dditronal public prosecutor has nor opposed the submissions made bv thc learned counsel for the petitioner. 6 Flai ing considerctl rhe submissions made by the respective pantes ancl after perusal or'the material available on record, it reveals that the learned Magisrrate has taken cognizance on 1g.01.2021, u.ithout recerliltg satislirction and without assrgnlng any reasons 3 against the accused and not against the offences, through the cognizance order.

relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittal7. It is very much v. Central Bureau of Investigationt the Hon'bte 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 Limitue, the Hon'ble Apex Court found fault with the order of the Magistrate in his not recordedissuing summons when the Magistrate has ln Chiefsatisfaction about the prima facie case against the accused' Enforcemnet Oflicer v. Videocon International Limitel ' the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the expression 'cognizance' of andheld that in criminal 1aw 'cognizance' means becoming aware the word used with respect to Court or a Judge initiating proceedings in respect of an offence. Taking cognizance would involve application of an offence' of mind by the Magistrate to the suspected commission ! (2015) 4 scc 609 2 lzor:; + scc 5os 31zooa; z scc 492 - *. 4 'l-he IJon'ble Suprerne Courr in Sunil Bhurati Mittal's case (Supra), funher held as lbllorvs: '',\'irte

.votl .lor t(Lkitt.q cogtri:trnce of the ollence rs the (4.,1.)licalK)n of ,Qtrlt ntind bt ;fu l[qli\t]1ttL,,tnd hi.t tttti.;fociion thrrr th" ott"gntior", ifproved, ttotr/d, t,tn.sritutt' ctn offenca lt is, tlterefore, irp"iro,tir"-'tlrot on o crtnplutnr ()r t)n d polict, report. rhe lvlagisiratL: f, bor,,ri tu co,nride, me qtttstiou .t\ ro ttlt.tltcr rlt, sunt, disclo.;ci contmissiort ttfan oflence and is rctltrtrel to lbrnt:.uch un opinion in lhi.\ respet. Wen he'rJoe, s,t nnd dcciies tt i-,.rrie 1.,rrrcLl., he sholl bc said ,o hiu,, tokr, ,:o[,rironr". et *" .\togt' o/ tuking togtti-uttce, thc onlf constclcration bifore the Court rcntuin.t r. c.ttstdcr judicroLt;rv therher rhc muteriui ott which the Dt-t)\rcutt() Pt-t)l)t).\es tt) proscL.ulL, the qccusctl britrgs out a prima fttcic ,8 ln Fakhruddin Ahmad v- State of Lrttaranchsl and anothera, it is held as lollou.s:

',\'(1,:,rtlrc,/(r!.!. tt i.t vell scttle(l thLt belitrc a Magistrate cttn be s.tttd to h,"t, tuktn t.ctqnt:ttncc of un offcnc,e, i,'i., ir";;r-r;t:;r:';;;t he must hq,vL trtkan nottL( ;/ tltc Lrc.cuscttton.s uttcl applietl'pi) ltis ntind lct the ullegatiort.t modt, in thc contpluint ,, i, titi"' ir,"'' ,"por, o, ,n, in/brntrlion rtccir.ecl .i.utt d .\t)ut.Lc other Iltttn ct polrce report, as the ce.\e tdv be, anl tha, Dtdteriul .lilcd thtrt.u,ith It'neccl.:; tir'tl<: empha.^is t.httr tt1:\ ttnt tLlt.1 rh, .\l,rqttrrutc,appltes his ntirul wti.sJiecl thut antl is th,. .tll. :,tt!..4.,, tt pt t,,l t,,ul,l ,.ttntritut, urff,.n,.. t,t a tlcticlc.t and inititt_e rtroccerlin$- oq(tin.\t thc ollegecl offendc, iin,i, ,on't r,'porir*"t, \tQteLl tltttt it.! lter ttrk(n ,rrgn,rrr,,ro ,rI tlr, ,rff"nr" Crrgrrtaonr" i., u, rtgorcl to rhL' o/fiu, e arul nor tht, offerulcr. 9 In vies ol the observations and directions ()f the Hon,ble Suprenrc Court in thc judgrnents referred to supra, the act of issuing process of sunrrnoning the accused to face crirninal trial is a serious issue and such ()rders cliret.ring summons to a person to lace criminal trial cannor be on rhc basis of cry.ptic orders and it should be an order I (2oo1) t7 scc 7s / 5 reflecting application of mind by the Presiding Officer while taking cognizance and issuing Process'

foregoing reasons and in view of the principles laid 10. For the 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 learned Magistrate is directed to take cognizance afresh and to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law' 11 Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of' ifany' shall stand closed Pending miscellaneous applications, SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, '1. The Vl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampa Hyderabad 2. The Station House Officer, Humayunnagar police Station, Hyderabad 3. One CC to SRl. D SATYA VEER, Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two ccs to PUBLTC PROSECUTOR High court for the state of rerangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies ADK/ISL 6b' COURTHIGH 05108'/2026DATED: ORDER i HtGH of 2026 GRLP.No'12590 s.J *42L s" P t JJ,t_o: CRLP OF THE DISPOSING (e @ o\l

[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12590 OF 2026 Between: HVAC Salman Khan, S/o. Hakeem Khan, Aged about. 33 years, Occ. Consultant, R/o. H. No. 10-3-274lA,Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad. ...Petitioner/Accused AND 1 The State of Telangana, Humayun Nagar, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. 2 J. Srikanth, S/o Not Known to the Petitioner, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Sub-lnspector of Police, Police Station, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/De-facto Compl ainant 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 No.5B5 ol 2021quash the proceedings against the Petitioner / Accused in c.c. Nampally,pending on the file of the Vl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 2OF 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 the appearance of the Petitioner / Accused in C.i. ruo. SBS of 2021 pending on the flle of the Vl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the main criminal Petition in the interest of justice.

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri D Satya Veer, Advocate for the Petitioner and sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public prosecutor on behalf of Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE TIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENTVAS RAO CRIMTNAL PETITION No.12590 of2026 Date:05.08.2026 Between: Salman Khan .. Petitioner/accused AND The State ofTelangana and another ...Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.1, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No'585 of 2021 on the file of the Vl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally' Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 25(1)(b) of the lndian Arms Act, 1959. D.Satya Veer, learned counsel for the petitioner and2. Heard Mr. Additional Public ProsecutorMr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned for respondent No.l 2 3 With the consent of both the leamed counsel, the criminal petition rs disposed o1'at the adnrission stage on the ground that even accordinc to thc lealncd counsel for the petitioner, the matter before the learned friirl Courr has not riped for the trial yer. In view of the same. notice in respec[ of rcspondent No.2lctefacto complainant is dispensed with.

4. Upon ltcrusal ol' the record, it reveals that the leamed Magistrate. ri rtht>ut recorcling satisfaction and without assigning any reasons, has taken cognizanec against the petitioner and issued summons rnechanically and passed crfptic docket order on 1g.01.2021 by using rubber stamp. Therefore, cognizance order passed by the learned Magistrare is liable to be quashed. 5. Leamed .\dditronal public prosecutor has nor opposed the submissions made bv thc learned counsel for the petitioner. 6 Flai ing considerctl rhe submissions made by the respective pantes ancl after perusal or'the material available on record, it reveals that the learned Magisrrate has taken cognizance on 1g.01.2021, u.ithout recerliltg satislirction and without assrgnlng any reasons 3 against the accused and not against the offences, through the cognizance order.

relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittal7. It is very much v. Central Bureau of Investigationt the Hon'bte 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 Limitue, the Hon'ble Apex Court found fault with the order of the Magistrate in his not recordedissuing summons when the Magistrate has ln Chiefsatisfaction about the prima facie case against the accused' Enforcemnet Oflicer v. Videocon International Limitel ' the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the expression 'cognizance' of andheld that in criminal 1aw 'cognizance' means becoming aware the word used with respect to Court or a Judge initiating proceedings in respect of an offence. Taking cognizance would involve application of an offence' of mind by the Magistrate to the suspected commission ! (2015) 4 scc 609 2 lzor:; + scc 5os 31zooa; z scc 492 - *. 4 'l-he IJon'ble Suprerne Courr in Sunil Bhurati Mittal's case (Supra), funher held as lbllorvs: '',\'irte

.votl .lor t(Lkitt.q cogtri:trnce of the ollence rs the (4.,1.)licalK)n of ,Qtrlt ntind bt ;fu l[qli\t]1ttL,,tnd hi.t tttti.;fociion thrrr th" ott"gntior", ifproved, ttotr/d, t,tn.sritutt' ctn offenca lt is, tlterefore, irp"iro,tir"-'tlrot on o crtnplutnr ()r t)n d polict, report. rhe lvlagisiratL: f, bor,,ri tu co,nride, me qtttstiou .t\ ro ttlt.tltcr rlt, sunt, disclo.;ci contmissiort ttfan oflence and is rctltrtrel to lbrnt:.uch un opinion in lhi.\ respet. Wen he'rJoe, s,t nnd dcciies tt i-,.rrie 1.,rrrcLl., he sholl bc said ,o hiu,, tokr, ,:o[,rironr". et *" .\togt' o/ tuking togtti-uttce, thc onlf constclcration bifore the Court rcntuin.t r. c.ttstdcr judicroLt;rv therher rhc muteriui ott which the Dt-t)\rcutt() Pt-t)l)t).\es tt) proscL.ulL, the qccusctl britrgs out a prima fttcic ,8 ln Fakhruddin Ahmad v- State of Lrttaranchsl and anothera, it is held as lollou.s:

',\'(1,:,rtlrc,/(r!.!. tt i.t vell scttle(l thLt belitrc a Magistrate cttn be s.tttd to h,"t, tuktn t.ctqnt:ttncc of un offcnc,e, i,'i., ir";;r-r;t:;r:';;;t he must hq,vL trtkan nottL( ;/ tltc Lrc.cuscttton.s uttcl applietl'pi) ltis ntind lct the ullegatiort.t modt, in thc contpluint ,, i, titi"' ir,"'' ,"por, o, ,n, in/brntrlion rtccir.ecl .i.utt d .\t)ut.Lc other Iltttn ct polrce report, as the ce.\e tdv be, anl tha, Dtdteriul .lilcd thtrt.u,ith It'neccl.:; tir'tl<: empha.^is t.httr tt1:\ ttnt tLlt.1 rh, .\l,rqttrrutc,appltes his ntirul wti.sJiecl thut antl is th,. .tll. :,tt!..4.,, tt pt t,,l t,,ul,l ,.ttntritut, urff,.n,.. t,t a tlcticlc.t and inititt_e rtroccerlin$- oq(tin.\t thc ollegecl offendc, iin,i, ,on't r,'porir*"t, \tQteLl tltttt it.! lter ttrk(n ,rrgn,rrr,,ro ,rI tlr, ,rff"nr" Crrgrrtaonr" i., u, rtgorcl to rhL' o/fiu, e arul nor tht, offerulcr. 9 In vies ol the observations and directions ()f the Hon,ble Suprenrc Court in thc judgrnents referred to supra, the act of issuing process of sunrrnoning the accused to face crirninal trial is a serious issue and such ()rders cliret.ring summons to a person to lace criminal trial cannor be on rhc basis of cry.ptic orders and it should be an order I (2oo1) t7 scc 7s / 5 reflecting application of mind by the Presiding Officer while taking cognizance and issuing Process'

foregoing reasons and in view of the principles laid 10. For the 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 learned Magistrate is directed to take cognizance afresh and to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law' 11 Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of' ifany' shall stand closed Pending miscellaneous applications, SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, '1. The Vl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampa Hyderabad 2. The Station House Officer, Humayunnagar police Station, Hyderabad 3. One CC to SRl. D SATYA VEER, Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two ccs to PUBLTC PROSECUTOR High court for the state of rerangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies ADK/ISL 6b' COURTHIGH 05108'/2026DATED: ORDER i HtGH of 2026 GRLP.No'12590 s.J *42L s" P t JJ,t_o: CRLP OF THE DISPOSING (e @ o\l