MekalaPavan Kumar v. The State of Telangana,

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO

Judgment date: 2026-04-23

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-04-23. MekalaPavan Kumar v. The State of Telangana,. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.

Judgment text

[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6334 OF 2026 Between: Mekala Pavan Kumar, S/o. Mekala Satyanarayana, Aged about 43 Years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H. No. 23-17211 , Shamshabad Village & Mandal, Rangareddy District. .. Petitioner/Accused-3 AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Cou( Buildings, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. ... Respondent 2. Dr. Sujaya Sagar Chauhan, Wo. Dr. Ashish Chauhan, Aged about 50 Years, Occ. Doctor, F/o. 301, SVL Height, First Lancer Road, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Mobile No. 8106127475. ... Defacto Complainant 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 proceedings in C. C. No.

1428 ot 2025 on the file of Judicial Magishate of First Class at Shadnagar, R. R. District for the offence punishable U/S 316 (2), 318(4) of BNS Rt/w 3(5) lPC. LA. NO: 1OF 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 in C. C. No. 1428 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Shadnagar, R. R. District, for the offence punishable U/S 316 (2) 318(4) of BNS Ri/w 3(5) lPC. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N. Gangadhar, Advocate for the Petitioner 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 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELAI{GANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE J.

SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6334 of 2026 Date:23. 04. 2026 Between: Mekala Pavan Kumar ... petitioner/accused No. 3 AND The State ofTelangana and another . respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No. 3 seeking to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 1428 of 2025 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Shadnagar, R. R. District, for the offences punishable under Section 316(2) and 3 1 8(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 read with 3(5) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Heard Sri N. Gangadhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. I . 3.

With thg consent of both the leamed counsel, the criminal petition is disposed of at the admission stage on the ground that even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter before the Ieamed Trial Court has not riped for the trial yet and is at the stage of'cxamination of the accused. In view of the same, notice in respect of respondent No. 2ldefacto complainant IS dispcnsed rvith 4. During the course of hearing, Ieamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the leamed Magistrate without recording satislaction and without assigning any reasons has taken cognizance and issued summons to the accused and the same is contrary to the principle laid down in Sunil Bharati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigationt. 'l'he 5 above said submissions are not opposed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 6.

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record it reveals that the leamed Magistrate has taken cognizance without applying his mind and without assigning any reasons, (:ot:) q sc--c noq ' especially taken cognizance against the accused and not against the offences through cognizance order passed in C. C. No. l428 of 2025. '7. It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittal supra 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. In GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infotine Limilet, the Hon'ble Apex Court found fautt 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. lt Chief Enforcemnet Officer v.

Videocon International Limitedr, 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 of an offence. Taking cognizance would involve application of mind by the Magistrate to the suspected commission of an offence. The Hon'ble Supreme ' 1zo r; a scc sos '(zooa) z scc aqz Court in Sunil Bharati Mittal's case (Supra), further held as fo llo ws: "Sine NonJbr taking cognizuncc of the oJ. fence is thc applicuriun Qua of ntind bv the ltfagistratc and his satisfaction lhat lhe allegttions, if proved, vrtuld cttnljtitule an o/fencc. It is, therefore, imperative lhat on o comploinl or on o police rcport, the Magislfttle is bound to consider llrc question as b wlrcllter lhe same discloses comnussion of an oflin<:e und is re,quired to fornt such an opinrcn in this respect.

Ll/hen he does so und dccides to issue process, he shall be said to have taken . ogruzane. At llrc r;tage of taking cognizancc, the only consideration lrcfitra the Court renatns to consicler judiciously whelher lhe mulcrial on w'hich lhe proscculion proposcs to prosecute the accused brings oul a priuu. focie case or not. " 8. In Fakhrutldin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal and anotltcr4, it is held as follows: . Ncverthele. ss, it is well scltled that before d Mqgistrate can bc stitl to havc takcn cognizantc of an offence, it is intperotive that hc mul lwre teke notice of lhe uccusetions and applied his mind tc' the ullt'gations nude in tha complaint or in lhe police report or the infornuuion rcccit'cd from a source other than a police report, as the case kuty bc, and the material Jiled therewith. lt need. s little enpha. ti. s thar it is only whcn the Magistrote applies his mind arul.

is Jl,ti:ftd that thc ollegalions, if proved, v,ould constitute an oflence and decidL's to initiutc proceedings dgainst the alleged olfender, thut tt cdn be positi'e||, steted that he has taken cognizance of the o. fftnct Oognizane ls in regord b the offence and not the oJIendl'" 9. [n view of the observations and directions of the Hon'bte S uprerne Court in the j udgments refened to supra, the act of issuing process 01- summoning the accused to face criminal trial is a serious issue and such orders directing summons to a person to face criminal trial cannot be on the basis of cryptic orders and it should '' (:oon) rz scc ty T be an order reflecting application of mind by the presiding Officer while taking cognizance and issuing process. 10. For the foregoing reasons as well as 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 cognizance order passed in C. C. No.

l42g of 2025 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate olFirst Class, at Shadnagar, R. R. District, is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. However, this order will not preclude the learned Magistrate from taking cognizance and passing orders afresh in accordance with law, by giving reasons. I l. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //rRUE COPY// 6 SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Shadnagar' R R District 2. The Station Houie Officer, Kothur Police Station, Cyberabad' public irosecutor, High court of Telangana at Hyderabad 3. Two CCs to the louTl a. One CC to Sri N. Gangadhar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies M/ GNK --"r -. rr-:-:_a1a4. - - . i- ' _ =:M "r- i:r'r- ' / , HIGH COURT DATED: 2310412026 _. :'. . ... -_' i i-'; o ,/-,ir ,:- i r-i. . '-\ 1\ J . '\ ::. i g APR ? 0? fi 2 a) ORDER CRLP. No.

6334 ot 2026 DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION t\

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.