[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13277 OF 2026 Between: 1. Ageeru Karthik, S/o Late Srinivas, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Doctor, R/o Nagar, n.ruo.'t t-tS-S58lt, Plot No.127, Road No.13, Alkapuri, L.B Rangareddy District. 2. Srivaram Manohara, S/o Adinarayana, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Business' R/o H.No.8-4-3 81l3l28l A, Prem nagar, Near Pochamma Temple, Erragadda, Rangareddy District. ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 and 7 AND 1. The State of Telangana, Through PS Vanasthalipuram, Rangareddy District' Rep. by its Public Prosecutor 2. Smt.sankushetti Vanaja Rani, Wo Naresh Aged about 40 years, Occ Doctor (Dentist) R/o Flat No.10'l , ARK Eternal Spring Apartments, Mansoorabad, Vanasthalipu ram. ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS :r- Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stateci the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to 673 ol 2025 on the file ofquash the proceedings against the Petitioners in cc No. Vtt ROOt. Metropolitan Magistrate At Hayath Nagar, Ranga Reddy Distnct, T9l-angana for the offences under sections 329 (4),74' 351 (2) r/w 3(5) of BNS, 2023 in the interest of justice. t.A NO: 1 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 673 of 2025 on the filestay all further proceedings including appearance in c.c. No. of Vll Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate At Hayath Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana including the appearance of the petitioners This Petition coming on for hearing' upon perusing the Memorandum- of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri R ANURAG, Advocate for the Petitioner and sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public theProsecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI-ANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURAI]LE SRI JT,ISTICE J.SREENIYAS RAO CRIMI\AL PETI'l'lON No.13277 of 2026 Date:17.08.2026 Eletw een : Ageeru Karthik and another ..Petitioners ANI) The State olTelangana and another Respondents ORDE,R This Criminal Petition has been Illed br the petitroners/accused Nos. I and 7 seeking to cluash thc proceedings in (,.C.\o.676 ol'2015 on the filc of the learned VI I Addirional Judicial Magistrate at Haval[nsg6r. Ranga Reddy 2. Heard Mr.R.Anurag. learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla. learned Additional public prosecutor fbr responclcnt No.l .

3. With the consenr o1' both thc learned cor-rnsc.i. the crirninal petition is disposed ofat the adrnission stage on the ground that eren according to the leamed counsel fbr the petitioners, rht: mqtter belore 2 of the trial ln viewthe learned trial Court has not yet ripened lor the respondent No'2ldefacto complainant issame. notice in respect of dispensed with. the leamed counsel for course of hearing'4. During the petitioners, subrnitted that the learned Magistrate' without recording satisfaction, has taken cognizance against the petitioners and issued summons mechanically and passed cryptic docket order' Therefore' be is liable to by the learned Magistrate the docket order passed quashed. Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the 5. Leamed subrrissions madc by the leamed counsel for the petitioners' by the respective considered the subrrissions tnade 6. Having parties and after perusal of the material available on record' it reveals without recording that the learned Magistrate has takcn cognizance' satisfaction against the accused and not against the offences' through docket order 3

7. It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittal v. Centrol Bureou o.f Investigatior: thc Ilon'ble Suprerne Cour-t held that the order of issuine process to accused to lace criminar trial is a serious issue. Such summoning cannot be done on nrere asking and the Court has to record reasons lor surnmoning a person. ln GHCL Emplol-ees Stock Option Trust v. India Inloline Limitei, the Hon'ble Apex Courr tbund lault with the order of the Magistrate in issuing sllmrnons rvhen thc \lagistrate has not recorded his satistaction about the prirna Iacic case against the ac:used. In Chief Enforcemnet Officer v. Virleocon Internationol Limifedi. the Hon'ble Supreme Court u,hile discussing the expression.cognizance, held that in criminal lar,r 'cognizance' means becontir.g aware ol and the word used with respect to Cour.t or a Judge initiat ng proceedings in respect of an offence. Taking cognizance wotrld in'rrl.",e application ol'rnind br thc \4agistrate ro thc sLrspected comnrissi.:r or an offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Cou( in Sunil Bhoruri Mitol's case (Supra), lurthcr held as tbllou s: ''Stnc Quc.t t\on fbr tuking (ugnt.(.tnc( tt/ tha olJLnce i.s the upplicalion o./ ntintl tv tha .lk$i\trdt( lni hi.\ \utr.\lit(tion thut the uttcguti,i,s. y provei. '(2015) 4 scc 609 '(2013) 4 scc so5 ' (2008) 2 SCC 492 4

a therefore' inperalive lhat on would'rl ton.ttilute un olJence. lt i;' tltc Mdgi:itrdte is bound to c"onsider the ,',,,iiituir, i, u, o polir:i rel)ort ,,,,o'r,i,,, u., to rlhctihe, rhc srtnte clisclose': connission of an olt'ence and is this resPect when he does 'so ond 'rio),irrit" rur:h ,n op''in' i 'ilriri,, frr:ri ,itrc prttcest ht'rhull ht stritl ro l14t'e tuken cognizonte. Ar rhe the ( ourt before consitleration tir*""f rok,ri ,ogn,ru',e lhc onlt. on uhith rhe ntqterial vherher ilri,r,r" i, ,,),t,Ji, tu't''i"l/''t' rhe proseculk)n proposes b Pro\cLLtte the ttccusetl brings ottt a prima /acie case or nol. ' it of [Jltaranchal tnd anothera '8 ln Fakhrudtlin Ahmad v' State is held as follows:

''Neverlheless it is vrell setlleLl lhat before a Mugistrate .can be musl lhal is inperative it of an cognizance iur, ,ofol,t "flcnce ,oia'i)llr ,n-,u,*r,', lhe ,heto his ntnl appliecl unJ <'tf thc (tccttrLttitt'1.\ notice tha or report polica the or itt the contplttint ntade itt ,'t\ )i;rgrilrr" lhc Lt report politc tlttn tt tt)It'c other recauetl informalion frttnt entphasi's 'riti ttt"tre t i'tl lileLl rlprctt irh' lr needs lirrlt ,ii, nr),,, rh,l that sati:[t-ed is ninJ"anJ Llt1 iL.\ hi\ the MagislrtttL i, ii *\ v'hen iri',iii" to de'ide' und t)lirnc( an rtrulJ 1"11"rtrutL ,)tt'"ru,iii'urr. il rtinvel 'ilr't,iZi*i;*r;;gt utgatnst the alleged offender' it can be nosltilell -that 't)riri Cognizance ts tn cognizonce o/ the offence' inr, l',e t,i riten " regarcl lo the olJence and not the offender' ol the Hon'ble observations and directions g. In view of the Suprcrne Court in the judgments referred to supra' the act of issuing trial is a serious process of summoning the'accused to face criminal issue and such orders directing sulrllrlons to a person to lace criminal trial cannot be on the basis of cryptic orders and it should be an order of mind by the Presiding Officer while taking reflecting application cognizance and issuing Process' o (2008) 17 scc 157 5

10. For the foregoing reasons and in view ol- the principles laid dorrn b"u- the Hon'ble Apex Cor-rrt rn the judgmcnts c ited .supro. and r.r'ithout going into the other grounds. this Court is ol the considered vier,i that the cognizance order is Iiable to be quashed rnd accordingly quashed. lhe leamed Magistrate is directed to take coenizance afresh and to proceed u,ith the rnatter. in accordance with lar," II Accordingly, the criminal perilion is disposed of Pending miscellaneous applications, il'any. shall stand closed SD/- S MALLIKAJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII 6 SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The VII Addl. Metroporitan Magistrate At Hayath Nagar, Ranga Reddy District 2. The Station House Officer, police Station, Vanasthalipuram, Rachakonda 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State :f Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT) 4 One CC to SRt R ANURAG Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CD Copies TPK/KA .rJl. HIGH COURT DATED: 1710812026 ORDER ..1i: ST,rIf )i1 .'. . \- 't\^\\ '( 'r '<, ; ' ..r CRLP.No.13277 of 2026 \ tuic 11 A',r ki t, +Fi! .*. ., \(o. $, \r."4 .'-lr ' i' '::r..-r _-::__r_-:C:-r rlti i.':.':..t .+_r-,-. CRIMINAL PETITION DISPOSED OF IS ^]T' -l-slr€

[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13277 OF 2026 Between: 1. Ageeru Karthik, S/o Late Srinivas, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Doctor, R/o Nagar, n.ruo.'t t-tS-S58lt, Plot No.127, Road No.13, Alkapuri, L.B Rangareddy District. 2. Srivaram Manohara, S/o Adinarayana, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Business' R/o H.No.8-4-3 81l3l28l A, Prem nagar, Near Pochamma Temple, Erragadda, Rangareddy District. ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 and 7 AND 1. The State of Telangana, Through PS Vanasthalipuram, Rangareddy District' Rep. by its Public Prosecutor 2. Smt.sankushetti Vanaja Rani, Wo Naresh Aged about 40 years, Occ Doctor (Dentist) R/o Flat No.10'l , ARK Eternal Spring Apartments, Mansoorabad, Vanasthalipu ram. ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS :r- Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stateci the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to 673 ol 2025 on the file ofquash the proceedings against the Petitioners in cc No. Vtt ROOt. Metropolitan Magistrate At Hayath Nagar, Ranga Reddy Distnct, T9l-angana for the offences under sections 329 (4),74' 351 (2) r/w 3(5) of BNS, 2023 in the interest of justice. t.A NO: 1 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 673 of 2025 on the filestay all further proceedings including appearance in c.c. No. of Vll Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate At Hayath Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana including the appearance of the petitioners This Petition coming on for hearing' upon perusing the Memorandum- of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri R ANURAG, Advocate for the Petitioner and sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public theProsecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI-ANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURAI]LE SRI JT,ISTICE J.SREENIYAS RAO CRIMI\AL PETI'l'lON No.13277 of 2026 Date:17.08.2026 Eletw een : Ageeru Karthik and another ..Petitioners ANI) The State olTelangana and another Respondents ORDE,R This Criminal Petition has been Illed br the petitroners/accused Nos. I and 7 seeking to cluash thc proceedings in (,.C.\o.676 ol'2015 on the filc of the learned VI I Addirional Judicial Magistrate at Haval[nsg6r. Ranga Reddy 2. Heard Mr.R.Anurag. learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla. learned Additional public prosecutor fbr responclcnt No.l .

3. With the consenr o1' both thc learned cor-rnsc.i. the crirninal petition is disposed ofat the adrnission stage on the ground that eren according to the leamed counsel fbr the petitioners, rht: mqtter belore 2 of the trial ln viewthe learned trial Court has not yet ripened lor the respondent No'2ldefacto complainant issame. notice in respect of dispensed with. the leamed counsel for course of hearing'4. During the petitioners, subrnitted that the learned Magistrate' without recording satisfaction, has taken cognizance against the petitioners and issued summons mechanically and passed cryptic docket order' Therefore' be is liable to by the learned Magistrate the docket order passed quashed. Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the 5. Leamed subrrissions madc by the leamed counsel for the petitioners' by the respective considered the subrrissions tnade 6. Having parties and after perusal of the material available on record' it reveals without recording that the learned Magistrate has takcn cognizance' satisfaction against the accused and not against the offences' through docket order 3

7. It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittal v. Centrol Bureou o.f Investigatior: thc Ilon'ble Suprerne Cour-t held that the order of issuine process to accused to lace criminar trial is a serious issue. Such summoning cannot be done on nrere asking and the Court has to record reasons lor surnmoning a person. ln GHCL Emplol-ees Stock Option Trust v. India Inloline Limitei, the Hon'ble Apex Courr tbund lault with the order of the Magistrate in issuing sllmrnons rvhen thc \lagistrate has not recorded his satistaction about the prirna Iacic case against the ac:used. In Chief Enforcemnet Officer v. Virleocon Internationol Limifedi. the Hon'ble Supreme Court u,hile discussing the expression.cognizance, held that in criminal lar,r 'cognizance' means becontir.g aware ol and the word used with respect to Cour.t or a Judge initiat ng proceedings in respect of an offence. Taking cognizance wotrld in'rrl.",e application ol'rnind br thc \4agistrate ro thc sLrspected comnrissi.:r or an offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Cou( in Sunil Bhoruri Mitol's case (Supra), lurthcr held as tbllou s: ''Stnc Quc.t t\on fbr tuking (ugnt.(.tnc( tt/ tha olJLnce i.s the upplicalion o./ ntintl tv tha .lk$i\trdt( lni hi.\ \utr.\lit(tion thut the uttcguti,i,s. y provei. '(2015) 4 scc 609 '(2013) 4 scc so5 ' (2008) 2 SCC 492 4

a therefore' inperalive lhat on would'rl ton.ttilute un olJence. lt i;' tltc Mdgi:itrdte is bound to c"onsider the ,',,,iiituir, i, u, o polir:i rel)ort ,,,,o'r,i,,, u., to rlhctihe, rhc srtnte clisclose': connission of an olt'ence and is this resPect when he does 'so ond 'rio),irrit" rur:h ,n op''in' i 'ilriri,, frr:ri ,itrc prttcest ht'rhull ht stritl ro l14t'e tuken cognizonte. Ar rhe the ( ourt before consitleration tir*""f rok,ri ,ogn,ru',e lhc onlt. on uhith rhe ntqterial vherher ilri,r,r" i, ,,),t,Ji, tu't''i"l/''t' rhe proseculk)n proposes b Pro\cLLtte the ttccusetl brings ottt a prima /acie case or nol. ' it of [Jltaranchal tnd anothera '8 ln Fakhrudtlin Ahmad v' State is held as follows:

''Neverlheless it is vrell setlleLl lhat before a Mugistrate .can be musl lhal is inperative it of an cognizance iur, ,ofol,t "flcnce ,oia'i)llr ,n-,u,*r,', lhe ,heto his ntnl appliecl unJ <'tf thc (tccttrLttitt'1.\ notice tha or report polica the or itt the contplttint ntade itt ,'t\ )i;rgrilrr" lhc Lt report politc tlttn tt tt)It'c other recauetl informalion frttnt entphasi's 'riti ttt"tre t i'tl lileLl rlprctt irh' lr needs lirrlt ,ii, nr),,, rh,l that sati:[t-ed is ninJ"anJ Llt1 iL.\ hi\ the MagislrtttL i, ii *\ v'hen iri',iii" to de'ide' und t)lirnc( an rtrulJ 1"11"rtrutL ,)tt'"ru,iii'urr. il rtinvel 'ilr't,iZi*i;*r;;gt utgatnst the alleged offender' it can be nosltilell -that 't)riri Cognizance ts tn cognizonce o/ the offence' inr, l',e t,i riten " regarcl lo the olJence and not the offender' ol the Hon'ble observations and directions g. In view of the Suprcrne Court in the judgments referred to supra' the act of issuing trial is a serious process of summoning the'accused to face criminal issue and such orders directing sulrllrlons to a person to lace criminal trial cannot be on the basis of cryptic orders and it should be an order of mind by the Presiding Officer while taking reflecting application cognizance and issuing Process' o (2008) 17 scc 157 5

10. For the foregoing reasons and in view ol- the principles laid dorrn b"u- the Hon'ble Apex Cor-rrt rn the judgmcnts c ited .supro. and r.r'ithout going into the other grounds. this Court is ol the considered vier,i that the cognizance order is Iiable to be quashed rnd accordingly quashed. lhe leamed Magistrate is directed to take coenizance afresh and to proceed u,ith the rnatter. in accordance with lar," II Accordingly, the criminal perilion is disposed of Pending miscellaneous applications, il'any. shall stand closed SD/- S MALLIKAJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII 6 SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The VII Addl. Metroporitan Magistrate At Hayath Nagar, Ranga Reddy District 2. The Station House Officer, police Station, Vanasthalipuram, Rachakonda 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State :f Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT) 4 One CC to SRt R ANURAG Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CD Copies TPK/KA .rJl. HIGH COURT DATED: 1710812026 ORDER ..1i: ST,rIf )i1 .'. . \- 't\^\\ '( 'r '<, ; ' ..r CRLP.No.13277 of 2026 \ tuic 11 A',r ki t, +Fi! .*. ., \(o. $, \r."4 .'-lr ' i' '::r..-r _-::__r_-:C:-r rlti i.':.':..t .+_r-,-. CRIMINAL PETITION DISPOSED OF IS ^]T' -l-slr€