[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13364 OF 2026 Between: 1. Pavan Kumar Tanvar, S/o Sri Rai Singh, age 42 yearc, Occ. Branch Manager, Om Logistics Limited, Baddi, Himachal Pradesh State, Rl/o Near Vardhaman Chowk, Beside New Family Dhaba at Baddi, Himachal Pradesh, N/o Bhivani, Haryana State. 2. Banoth Pandu, Sio Sri Shakru, Agdd 40 years, Occ. Branch lncharge, Om Logistics Limited Gagillapur, F/o H.No.2-34, Raju Thanda, Narayanapur Village, Narsapur Mandal, Medak District. ...Petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 AND public 1 The State of Telangana, rep by Dundigal p S, Medchal Through Prosecutor, High Cou( for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad ... Respondent 2 Seepana Yogeeswara Rao, S/o S.Vishnumurthy, aged 36 years,Occ. Manager-Operations in Hubert Health Care ivt.''t_tO- nfo l/ayuri 'Vf.tn Heights, FIat No.402, Lahari Green parf noai,'Opi. Vasrri Orban, Near Pragathinagar Kaman. ... RespondenUDe-facto Comptainant

Petition under Section 5,28 gf-qNSS praying that in the circumstancesthe Memorandum stated in of Grounds of criminat,peiiti",,r,quash' the proceedings i[.,ff ign Court may be pleased to in,c c )Lr'+'iizdi''p"nding on the fire of the v, -r.ro.First_ctassA.cr*.nar Judiciar Maoiskate of ; ffi#, for.offences ulsec. sro 1i,1 , iil"'p""ffi.1lJilil'3io,1i:'J3/"?:3i13;333'";'*ilJ ,o , and 2 herein in the l.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 grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C, No. 2374 of 2024 pending on the file of Vlll Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Medchal, against the petitioners/Accused No 1 and 2 herein pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, 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 --J IN TIIE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.13364 of 2026 Date: 18.08.2026 Between: Pavan Kumar Tanvar and another ...Petitioners AND The State ofTelangana, and another ..Respondents ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2374 of 2024, on the fiie of the leamed VIII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Medchal. 2. Heard Mr.Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 . 3. With the consent of both the leamed 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 leamed trial Court has not ripened for the trial yet. In 2 - view of the same, rlotice in respect of respondent No.2 is dispensed with that the learned4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits Magistrate. without recording satisfaction and wrthout assigning anv reasons, has taken cognizance against the petitioners and issued summons rnechanically and passed cryptic docket order. Therefore. the docket order passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be quashed

has not opposed the5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submissions made by the leamed counsel for the petitioners respective6. Having considered the submissions tnade by the parties 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 agatnst the offences, through docket order' mention that in Sunil Bharati 7 . tt is very much relevant to Mittal v. Central Bureau of lnvestigationt the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order of issuing process to accused to face (l{l r 5) l SCC 609 1-- a

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 v. India Infoline Limitet, 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. In Chief Enforcemnet Olficer v, Videocon Internqtional Limited3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the expression 'cogtizance, held that in criminal law 'cognizance' means becoming aware of and the word used with respect to Court or a Judge initiating proceedings rn respect of an offence. Taking cognizance would involve application of mind by the Magistrate to the suspected commission of an offence. The Hon,ble Supreme Court in Sunit Bharati Mitta,s case (supra),further held as follows: "Sine Non eua for takinr

the appticarion mire ,f by .'lYtl:^ r't/.the ofence is ti;;'M;;i[f su-ris1faaion thar fi" attigatroni, proved, woultl conn,ru," d l.!!!.0" therefore imperative ct complaint that on o, oo1,r'"'.-o!!n'.'",L:: or,' the Magisrrare is the biund ro ct,nsider q)e,tiun oi t; ";;;:;.':'?,"' disctoses commission o11"i,, of an ,,i ,"*,"ri,,,Ji',::7_::L s1me an opinion in his respect wen ii dr", ,o ,ra iJ"il"i il !!"rm ruch cosruzance Ar rhe snse ,l'ii"Li?i1!::,!:shatt .be said to have nken befo re t h e c, r,,," "_; i7 r 17, ii, lrfr',,irr,:; : ;;:;,,1 :II ff;i:;i; ":;:, '(20t 3) + scc sos " (2008) 2 SCC 4s2 4 -t at1 'AhiLh the prose(:ution proposes to pro\ecute the ,ul.:used brutgs our a prrmo faLit' czse or not- " 8 ln Fukhruddin Ahmad v. State of L'ttaranchal and anotherl . it is held as follows

"'iererlheitss. ir i.s well settled thot before a Mdgistrqte can he satd !,t lrt' tdken togni:ance of an olfence, il is imPerotive that he tntsl liatc takan noticc of lhe accusation-s antl upplied his mind to tha ttlleglhons nuLle in the complaint or in the police report or the inlormutirtrt rect ivedjiom u source other than a police report, as the needs little case ma\ ltt', anl the muterial filed therevith. It emphosis 'hctL [t i.s onh rhen the Magistrdle applrcs his mind and is ,uiirli"rl th( allegotions, if proved, would constitute an offence 'ho, k) tniti(tle proceedings againsl the alleged olfender' that und decicit.s the it cun bt positivclt itated that he has taken cogrtizance of o./Jenre (i.tgni:untt' ls in regurtl to the offence and rutt the ,t lJ t n,k r. olthe Hon'ble of the observations and directions9. In vieu to supra' the act of Supreme Court in the judgments referred to face criminal trial issuutg process of sulnmoning the accused to a person is a serious issue and such orders directing summons of cryptic orders and trial cannot be on the basis to lace criminal the of mind by it should be an order reflecting application and issuing process' Presiding Oillcer while taking cognizance reasons and in view ofthe principles laid lror the foregoing 10. Courl in the judgments cited supra' dor'"'n bv the Hon'ble '\pex this Coul is of the going into the other grounds' and witilout ' (200!) r- sc( lsl --

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. 1 1. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SO/. B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Vlll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Medchal 2. The Station House Officer, Dundigal Police Station, Cyberabad 3. One CC to Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUTI 5. Two CD Copies ADK/GNK Ny HIGH COURT DATED: 1810812026 s.L STAIF ORDER q v 2 ^^nnCRLP.No.13364 of 2026 t'io g 2 5 [\t$ )o!J t i o € P Ar DISPOSING OF THE CRLP irt 'a} 'it'

[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13364 OF 2026 Between: 1. Pavan Kumar Tanvar, S/o Sri Rai Singh, age 42 yearc, Occ. Branch Manager, Om Logistics Limited, Baddi, Himachal Pradesh State, Rl/o Near Vardhaman Chowk, Beside New Family Dhaba at Baddi, Himachal Pradesh, N/o Bhivani, Haryana State. 2. Banoth Pandu, Sio Sri Shakru, Agdd 40 years, Occ. Branch lncharge, Om Logistics Limited Gagillapur, F/o H.No.2-34, Raju Thanda, Narayanapur Village, Narsapur Mandal, Medak District. ...Petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 AND public 1 The State of Telangana, rep by Dundigal p S, Medchal Through Prosecutor, High Cou( for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad ... Respondent 2 Seepana Yogeeswara Rao, S/o S.Vishnumurthy, aged 36 years,Occ. Manager-Operations in Hubert Health Care ivt.''t_tO- nfo l/ayuri 'Vf.tn Heights, FIat No.402, Lahari Green parf noai,'Opi. Vasrri Orban, Near Pragathinagar Kaman. ... RespondenUDe-facto Comptainant

Petition under Section 5,28 gf-qNSS praying that in the circumstancesthe Memorandum stated in of Grounds of criminat,peiiti",,r,quash' the proceedings i[.,ff ign Court may be pleased to in,c c )Lr'+'iizdi''p"nding on the fire of the v, -r.ro.First_ctassA.cr*.nar Judiciar Maoiskate of ; ffi#, for.offences ulsec. sro 1i,1 , iil"'p""ffi.1lJilil'3io,1i:'J3/"?:3i13;333'";'*ilJ ,o , and 2 herein in the l.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 grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C, No. 2374 of 2024 pending on the file of Vlll Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Medchal, against the petitioners/Accused No 1 and 2 herein pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, 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 --J IN TIIE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.13364 of 2026 Date: 18.08.2026 Between: Pavan Kumar Tanvar and another ...Petitioners AND The State ofTelangana, and another ..Respondents ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2374 of 2024, on the fiie of the leamed VIII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Medchal. 2. Heard Mr.Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 . 3. With the consent of both the leamed 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 leamed trial Court has not ripened for the trial yet. In 2 - view of the same, rlotice in respect of respondent No.2 is dispensed with that the learned4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits Magistrate. without recording satisfaction and wrthout assigning anv reasons, has taken cognizance against the petitioners and issued summons rnechanically and passed cryptic docket order. Therefore. the docket order passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be quashed

has not opposed the5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submissions made by the leamed counsel for the petitioners respective6. Having considered the submissions tnade by the parties 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 agatnst the offences, through docket order' mention that in Sunil Bharati 7 . tt is very much relevant to Mittal v. Central Bureau of lnvestigationt the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order of issuing process to accused to face (l{l r 5) l SCC 609 1-- a

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 v. India Infoline Limitet, 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. In Chief Enforcemnet Olficer v, Videocon Internqtional Limited3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the expression 'cogtizance, held that in criminal law 'cognizance' means becoming aware of and the word used with respect to Court or a Judge initiating proceedings rn respect of an offence. Taking cognizance would involve application of mind by the Magistrate to the suspected commission of an offence. The Hon,ble Supreme Court in Sunit Bharati Mitta,s case (supra),further held as follows: "Sine Non eua for takinr

the appticarion mire ,f by .'lYtl:^ r't/.the ofence is ti;;'M;;i[f su-ris1faaion thar fi" attigatroni, proved, woultl conn,ru," d l.!!!.0" therefore imperative ct complaint that on o, oo1,r'"'.-o!!n'.'",L:: or,' the Magisrrare is the biund ro ct,nsider q)e,tiun oi t; ";;;:;.':'?,"' disctoses commission o11"i,, of an ,,i ,"*,"ri,,,Ji',::7_::L s1me an opinion in his respect wen ii dr", ,o ,ra iJ"il"i il !!"rm ruch cosruzance Ar rhe snse ,l'ii"Li?i1!::,!:shatt .be said to have nken befo re t h e c, r,,," "_; i7 r 17, ii, lrfr',,irr,:; : ;;:;,,1 :II ff;i:;i; ":;:, '(20t 3) + scc sos " (2008) 2 SCC 4s2 4 -t at1 'AhiLh the prose(:ution proposes to pro\ecute the ,ul.:used brutgs our a prrmo faLit' czse or not- " 8 ln Fukhruddin Ahmad v. State of L'ttaranchal and anotherl . it is held as follows

"'iererlheitss. ir i.s well settled thot before a Mdgistrqte can he satd !,t lrt' tdken togni:ance of an olfence, il is imPerotive that he tntsl liatc takan noticc of lhe accusation-s antl upplied his mind to tha ttlleglhons nuLle in the complaint or in the police report or the inlormutirtrt rect ivedjiom u source other than a police report, as the needs little case ma\ ltt', anl the muterial filed therevith. It emphosis 'hctL [t i.s onh rhen the Magistrdle applrcs his mind and is ,uiirli"rl th( allegotions, if proved, would constitute an offence 'ho, k) tniti(tle proceedings againsl the alleged olfender' that und decicit.s the it cun bt positivclt itated that he has taken cogrtizance of o./Jenre (i.tgni:untt' ls in regurtl to the offence and rutt the ,t lJ t n,k r. olthe Hon'ble of the observations and directions9. In vieu to supra' the act of Supreme Court in the judgments referred to face criminal trial issuutg process of sulnmoning the accused to a person is a serious issue and such orders directing summons of cryptic orders and trial cannot be on the basis to lace criminal the of mind by it should be an order reflecting application and issuing process' Presiding Oillcer while taking cognizance reasons and in view ofthe principles laid lror the foregoing 10. Courl in the judgments cited supra' dor'"'n bv the Hon'ble '\pex this Coul is of the going into the other grounds' and witilout ' (200!) r- sc( lsl --

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. 1 1. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SO/. B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Vlll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Medchal 2. The Station House Officer, Dundigal Police Station, Cyberabad 3. One CC to Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUTI 5. Two CD Copies ADK/GNK Ny HIGH COURT DATED: 1810812026 s.L STAIF ORDER q v 2 ^^nnCRLP.No.13364 of 2026 t'io g 2 5 [\t$ )o!J t i o € P Ar DISPOSING OF THE CRLP irt 'a} 'it'