[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13009 OF 2026 Between: 1. Punna Nagara.;u, S/o Sandaiah, Aged. 39 years, Occ. Security guard, R/o. Site-3, Boraba nda. 2. Punna Srinivas, S/o. Sandaiah, Age 40 years, Occ Security Guard, R/o. Site-3, Borabanda. 3. Vemula [Vanikya chary, S/o. Suribabu, Aged.32 years, Occ. Watchman, R/o. Road No 26, [\4y school ltaly, Jubilee hills, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 4 to 6 AND 1. Sri Krishna Chethanya, S/o. Andrezo, Aged. 27 years, Occ. Business, R/o Exhibition Hi-Tech Centre, Hyderabad. 2. State of Telangana, rep. by P.P., High Court, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C No. 674 of 2026 on the file of the ll Additional Junior Civil Judge - Cum - X Additional Judicial First Class [t/agistrate Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, Cyberabad in respect of the petitioners/A4 to 46. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioners in C.C. No. 674 of 2026 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge - Cum - X Additional Judicial First Class ft/agistrate Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, Cyberabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the l\,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P PRABHAKAR REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and none appeared for the Respondent No.1 . The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF I'ELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) TTIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENTVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.13009 of 2026 Date:12.08.2026 Between: Punna Nagaraju and two others ...Petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 6 AND Sri Krishna Chethanya and another ...Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed by the pe.-itioners/accused Nos.4 to 6, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.674 of 2026 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpaily, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 118(2), 352, and 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. Heard Mr. P. Prabhakar Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2. 2 3. With the consent ,of both the learned counsel, the criminal petition is disposed of at the admission stage on the ground that even according to the leamed counsel for the petitioners, the matter before the learned Trial Court has not riped for the trial yet. In view of the same, notice in respect of respondent No.lldefacto complainant is dispensed with. 4. Upon perusal of the record, it reveals that the leamed Magistrate, without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons, has taken cognizance against the petitioners and issued summons mechanically and passed cryptic docket order by using rubber stamp. Therefore, cognizance order passed by the leamed Magistrate is liable to be quashed. 5. Leamed Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submissions made by the leamed counsel for the petitioners 6. Having considered the submissions made by the respective parlies and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the leamed Magistrate has taken cognizance, without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons against the accused and not against the offences, through the cognizance order. 3

7 . It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Miftal v, Central Bureau of Investigationt the Hon'ble Sup,1sm. Court held that the order of issuing process to accused to face criminal trial is a serious issue. Such summoning cannot be done on rere asking and the Court has to record reasons for summoning a p3rson. In GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Limitet, the Hon'ble Apex Court found fault with the order of the Magistrate in issuing summons when the Magistrate has nct recorded his satisfaction about the prima facie case against the a,:cused. In Chief Enforcemnet OfJicer v. Videocon International' Limitef, 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 Bhurati Mittal's case (Supra), further held as follows: "Sine Qua Non for kking cognizance of the offence is the qplication of mind by the Magistrate and his satidaction that the allegutic,ns, if proved, 1 lzorsy + scc oos 'z lzora; + scc sos 3 (2oo8) z scc 492 4

a woultl constitute an offence. It is, therefore, imperqtive that on complaint or on a police report, the Magistrate is bound to consider the qu"itio, o, to whether the same discloses commission of an offence and is iequired to f<trm such an opinion in this respect. Wen he does so and deiidn" to issue process, he shall be sqid to have taken cognizance At the stage of tqking cognizance, the only considerqtion before the Court ,eioini to cinsicler judiciously whether the material on which the prosecution proposes to prosecute the accused brings out a prima facie case or noL " 8 In Fakhruddin Ahmad v. Stute of (lttaranchal and anothe/, it is held as follows

"Nevertheless, it is well settled that before a Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offence, tt is imperative that he must the have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the complaint or tn the police reporl or information received from a source other than a police report, ds the needs little emphasis material filetl therewith. It ,ir" *oy be, and the that it ii only when the Magistrate dpplies his mind and is satisl'ied that the allegdtions, if proved, would constitute an oifence and decides to initiatu jroceedings against the alleged offender, that it can be positively stated that he has taken cognizance of the offence. Cognizance is in regard to the olfence and not the offender- " and directions of the Hon'bleg. In view of the observations Supreme Court in the judgments referred to supra, the act of issuing process of summoning the accused to face criminal trial is a serious issue and such orders directing summons to a person to face criminal it should be an order trial cannot be on the basis of cryptic orders and reflecting application of mind by the Presiding Officer while taking cogtTizanae and issuing Process. 4 (2008) 17 scc 157 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 liabie to be quashecl and accordingly quashed. The learned Magistrate is directed to take cognizance afresh and to proceed with the matter, in accordance with la\v. 1 1 . Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed c f, Pending miscellaneous applications, ifany, shall stand closed. SD/. C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 6 SECTION OFFICERTo 1 The ll Additionar Junior civir Judge - cum - X Additionar Judiciar First crass at Kukatpally, Cyberabad. 2. ^ It4agistrateThe StationRangaHouse ReddyOfficer,Distrjctpolice Statron, tvathapur, Cvberabad. 3. Two CCs to public prosecutor, High Court for the State cf Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT) 4 One CC to SRt. p PRABHAKAR REDDY Advocate [OplJC] 5. Two CD Copies TPK1KA --F!- HIGH COURT DATED: 1210812026 ORDER GRLP.No.13009 of 2026 tr{ E STAr€ q o\ i),) 2,t2,ri I Al]E rl .L, .q-./, .l , ,, .; -- OFCRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED ^lT -le l-re

[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13009 OF 2026 Between: 1. Punna Nagara.;u, S/o Sandaiah, Aged. 39 years, Occ. Security guard, R/o. Site-3, Boraba nda. 2. Punna Srinivas, S/o. Sandaiah, Age 40 years, Occ Security Guard, R/o. Site-3, Borabanda. 3. Vemula [Vanikya chary, S/o. Suribabu, Aged.32 years, Occ. Watchman, R/o. Road No 26, [\4y school ltaly, Jubilee hills, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 4 to 6 AND 1. Sri Krishna Chethanya, S/o. Andrezo, Aged. 27 years, Occ. Business, R/o Exhibition Hi-Tech Centre, Hyderabad. 2. State of Telangana, rep. by P.P., High Court, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C No. 674 of 2026 on the file of the ll Additional Junior Civil Judge - Cum - X Additional Judicial First Class [t/agistrate Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, Cyberabad in respect of the petitioners/A4 to 46. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioners in C.C. No. 674 of 2026 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge - Cum - X Additional Judicial First Class ft/agistrate Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, Cyberabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the l\,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P PRABHAKAR REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and none appeared for the Respondent No.1 . The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF I'ELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) TTIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENTVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.13009 of 2026 Date:12.08.2026 Between: Punna Nagaraju and two others ...Petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 6 AND Sri Krishna Chethanya and another ...Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed by the pe.-itioners/accused Nos.4 to 6, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.674 of 2026 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpaily, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 118(2), 352, and 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. Heard Mr. P. Prabhakar Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2. 2 3. With the consent ,of both the learned counsel, the criminal petition is disposed of at the admission stage on the ground that even according to the leamed counsel for the petitioners, the matter before the learned Trial Court has not riped for the trial yet. In view of the same, notice in respect of respondent No.lldefacto complainant is dispensed with. 4. Upon perusal of the record, it reveals that the leamed Magistrate, without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons, has taken cognizance against the petitioners and issued summons mechanically and passed cryptic docket order by using rubber stamp. Therefore, cognizance order passed by the leamed Magistrate is liable to be quashed. 5. Leamed Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submissions made by the leamed counsel for the petitioners 6. Having considered the submissions made by the respective parlies and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the leamed Magistrate has taken cognizance, without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons against the accused and not against the offences, through the cognizance order. 3

7 . It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Miftal v, Central Bureau of Investigationt the Hon'ble Sup,1sm. Court held that the order of issuing process to accused to face criminal trial is a serious issue. Such summoning cannot be done on rere asking and the Court has to record reasons for summoning a p3rson. In GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Limitet, the Hon'ble Apex Court found fault with the order of the Magistrate in issuing summons when the Magistrate has nct recorded his satisfaction about the prima facie case against the a,:cused. In Chief Enforcemnet OfJicer v. Videocon International' Limitef, 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 Bhurati Mittal's case (Supra), further held as follows: "Sine Qua Non for kking cognizance of the offence is the qplication of mind by the Magistrate and his satidaction that the allegutic,ns, if proved, 1 lzorsy + scc oos 'z lzora; + scc sos 3 (2oo8) z scc 492 4

a woultl constitute an offence. It is, therefore, imperqtive that on complaint or on a police report, the Magistrate is bound to consider the qu"itio, o, to whether the same discloses commission of an offence and is iequired to f<trm such an opinion in this respect. Wen he does so and deiidn" to issue process, he shall be sqid to have taken cognizance At the stage of tqking cognizance, the only considerqtion before the Court ,eioini to cinsicler judiciously whether the material on which the prosecution proposes to prosecute the accused brings out a prima facie case or noL " 8 In Fakhruddin Ahmad v. Stute of (lttaranchal and anothe/, it is held as follows

"Nevertheless, it is well settled that before a Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offence, tt is imperative that he must the have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the complaint or tn the police reporl or information received from a source other than a police report, ds the needs little emphasis material filetl therewith. It ,ir" *oy be, and the that it ii only when the Magistrate dpplies his mind and is satisl'ied that the allegdtions, if proved, would constitute an oifence and decides to initiatu jroceedings against the alleged offender, that it can be positively stated that he has taken cognizance of the offence. Cognizance is in regard to the olfence and not the offender- " and directions of the Hon'bleg. In view of the observations Supreme Court in the judgments referred to supra, the act of issuing process of summoning the accused to face criminal trial is a serious issue and such orders directing summons to a person to face criminal it should be an order trial cannot be on the basis of cryptic orders and reflecting application of mind by the Presiding Officer while taking cogtTizanae and issuing Process. 4 (2008) 17 scc 157 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 liabie to be quashecl and accordingly quashed. The learned Magistrate is directed to take cognizance afresh and to proceed with the matter, in accordance with la\v. 1 1 . Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed c f, Pending miscellaneous applications, ifany, shall stand closed. SD/. C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 6 SECTION OFFICERTo 1 The ll Additionar Junior civir Judge - cum - X Additionar Judiciar First crass at Kukatpally, Cyberabad. 2. ^ It4agistrateThe StationRangaHouse ReddyOfficer,Distrjctpolice Statron, tvathapur, Cvberabad. 3. Two CCs to public prosecutor, High Court for the State cf Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT) 4 One CC to SRt. p PRABHAKAR REDDY Advocate [OplJC] 5. Two CD Copies TPK1KA --F!- HIGH COURT DATED: 1210812026 ORDER GRLP.No.13009 of 2026 tr{ E STAr€ q o\ i),) 2,t2,ri I Al]E rl .L, .q-./, .l , ,, .; -- OFCRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED ^lT -le l-re