Penubelly Srinivas, v. The State of Telangana,
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-04-17. Penubelly Srinivas, v. The State of Telangana,. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 33031 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRlMINAL PETITION NO: 5814 OF 2026 Between: Penubelly Srinivas, S/o. Siddaiah, aged about 37 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H. No. 2314, Raja Rajeswari Colony, Kapra, ECIL, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. ... Petitioner/Accused No. 4 AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad. ... Respondent No. 1 2. The SubJnspector of Police, Police Station Shamirpet, Cyberabad Commissionerate. ... Respondent No. 2/De-facto 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 call for the records relating to PRC No. 29 ot 2025 on the file of the XVll Additional Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate of First class, Medchal, arising out of crime No.
448 ot 2024 on the file of Police Station Shamirpet, cyberabad and quash the same insofar as the petitioner/Accused No. 4 is concerned. 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 in PRC No. 29 of 2025 on the file of the XVll Additional Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate of First Class, Medchal, insofar as the petitioner/Accused No. 4 is concerned. the Memorandum of Grounds This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri N. Ashok Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and Ms. S. Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalfofthe Respondent Nos. 1 and 2' The Gourt made the following: ORDER IN TT]IE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA j AT HYDERABAD I ! $ 2 THT) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO ! I AL t4 Datez 17. 04. 2026 Between: Penubelly Srinivas ...
Petitioner/Accused No. 4 AND T'he State of I'elangana and another ... Respondents ORDER Thir; criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No. 4 seekLng to quash the proceedings in PRC No. 29 of 2025 on the file of the XVII Additional Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate of Firsr Class, Merlchal, for the offences punishable under Sections 310(4) and 6l(2) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhira, Z0Z3. 2. Heard Mr. N. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. S. Irladhavi, leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos. l and 2. with their consent, the criminal petition is disposed of at the adrniss on stage on the ground that even according to the learned ,T3 f*r counsel for the petitioners, the matter before the trial court is at the stage of summons 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons has taken cognizanc e on 24. 04.
2025 and issued summons to the petitioner and the same is contrary to the principle laid down in Sunil Bhoruti Mittot v. central Bureau of Investigationt. 4. The above said submissions are not opposed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on 24. 04. 2025 without applying his mind and without assigning any reasons, especially taken cognizance against the accused and not against the offences through cognizance order passed in pRC No. 29 of 2025. 6. It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittat supra the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order of issuing i sccoqg ' lzors;4 l. I ll 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 surnmoning a person.
In GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. Indio Infoline Limitefr, the Hon'ble Apex Court found fault with the order of the Magistrate in issuing summons when the Magislrate has not recorded his satisfaction about the prima facie case against the accused. In Chief Enforcemnet Of/icer v. Videocon International Limitef, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the expression 'cognizance' held that in criminal law 'cognizance' means bec,rming 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 <:ommission of an offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharsti Miltal's case (Supra), further held as follows: "sine Qua Non. for taking cognizance of the offence is the apprication of mind l,y the fulagistrate and his satisfaction that the allegations, dprovei, u'ould conslitute an offence.
It is, therefore, imperarive that on a complaint or on a police report, the Magistrate is bound to consider the questiott as to v,hether rhe same discloses commission of an offence and is required lo form such an opinion in this respecl. when he does so and decides to isstte process, he shall be said to have taken cognizonce. At the stage of taking cogttizonce, the only consideration before the court remairs to consider judiciously whether the material on which the prosecution proposes to prosecute the accused brings out a prima facie case or not-" 21ZOLZ';4 SCC sos 3 1zooa1 2scc49z r..
\ 7 ln Fakhruddin Ahmad v, State of {lttaranchal antl anothero, it is held as follows: "Nevertheless, i/ ls well settled that before a Magislrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offence, it ts imperative lhat he must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the complaint or in the police report or the information received from a source other than a police report, as the case mcry be, and the material filed therewith. It needs little emphasis that it is only when the Magistrate applies his mind and is satisfied thnt the allegations, d proved, would constitute an offence and decides to initiate proceedings against the alleged offender, that il can be positively stated that he has taken cognizance of the offence. Cognizance is in regard to the offence and not the offender. " 8.
[n view of the observations and directions of the Hon'ble 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 trial cannot be on the basis of cryptic orders and it should be an order reflecting application of mind by the Presiding Officer while taking cognizance and issuing process. 9. 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 PRC No. 29 of 2025 pending on the file of XVII Additional Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate of First Class, 17 scf157 '1zooa1 Medchal, is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed.
However, this ordt:r will not preclude the leamed Magistrate from taking cognizan:e and passing orders afresh in accordance with law, by glvrng reasons. 10. Acr:ordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, ifany, shall stand closed. SD/. P. C. SULEKHA DEV SISTANT REGIST //TRUE COPYII To, SECTION OFFTCER 1 The XVI t\dditional Judicial Metropolitan M ist 2 The Vll of First Class, Medchal. Acrditio nal Metro politan Magistrate At 3 The Station chal, Cyberabad. H ouse Officer, Shameerpet police 4 Two CCs tion Cyberabad to the Public pro District. secutor, High Court of Telangana touTl at Hyderabad 5. One CC to Sri N. Ashok Kumar' Advocate 6. Two cD [oPUc] copies GNI(KAM ? $Il^ I . t t HIGH CO[. 'RT DATEDi 11710412026 'I STA R o 202$ (J 2?. APfi CRLP. No. S81 4 of 2026 * * af. \ t DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION PBE-ed"
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.