Syed Moinuddin Ghori v. The State of Telangana

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO

Judgment date: 2026-04-21

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-04-21. Syed Moinuddin Ghori 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 TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6098 OF 2026 BETWEEN: Syed [\/oinuddin Ghori, S/o Syed Jarnaluddin Ghori, Age about. 38 years Occ. Business, FJo. 2-4-7214, Fort view colony, Pillar no 1 91 , upperpally, Rajendranagar, Rangareddy, Telangana- 500048 ... Petitioner/Accused-2 AND 1. The State of Telangana Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2. Abdul Hadi, S/o Abdul Bari, aged about 43 years, Occupation. Business, Resident of H. No. 5-4-38, Bhavani Colony, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ... Respondents/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 C. C. No.

2519 of 2025 pending before the Xl Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cyberabad, at Upperpally, Rajendranagar, quash the same, in so far as it relates to the Petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No. 2. l. A. 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. 2519 of 2025 pending before the Xl Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cyberabad at Upperpally, Rajendranagar pending disposal of the present quash Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Mohammed lqbal Ali Khan, 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 TIIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6098 of 2026 Date:21. 04. 2026 Between Syed Moinuddin Ghori ... petitioner/accused No. 2 AND The State ofTelangana and another ... respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No. 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 25 19 of 2025, pending on the file of the XI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cyberabad, at Upperpally, Rajendranagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 324(4), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Heard Mr. Mohammed Iqbal Ali Khan, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. l. -.. 2 3.

With the consent of both the ieamed 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 learned Trial Court has not riped for the trial yet. In view of the same, notice in respect of respondent No. Zldefacto complainant is dispensed with. 4. During the course of hearing, leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that accused No. 1 had approached this Court and filed Crl. P. No. 5714 of 2026, seeking to quash the very same proceedings i. e. , in C. C. No. 2519 of 2025, pending on the file of the XI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cyberabad, at Upperpally, Rajendranagar and this Cour1, on 16. 04. 2026, disposed of the above said criminal petition by setting aside the cognizance order dated 03. 07. 2025, passed by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the petitioner/accuse d No. 2 is also entitled to the very same relief. 5.

The above said submissions are not opposed by the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the respective parties and the order passed in Crl. p. No. 5714 of 2026, dated I6. 04. 2026, this Courl is olthe considered view that docket order dated 03. 07. 2025 passed by rhe leamed XI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cyberabad, at Upperpa[y, Rajendranagar in C. C. No. 25 19 of 2025 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. 7 . Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous apptications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/. B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII I ,t- L_. y I SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Xl Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, cyberabad, at Upperpally, Rajendranagar.

Additionat l\rletropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad At Rajendranagar. ? I! ,]" ! 3. The Station House Officer, Rajendranagar police Station, CyOeraOaOl 4. Two ccs to the Pubric Prosecutor, High court of rerangina at Hyderabad lourl 5. One CC to Sri Mohammed lqbal AIi Khan, Advocate [OpUC] 6. Two CD Copies GNl(VH P{( HIGH COURT Cctoa "J DATED: 2110412026 I ORDER ,s * n J. ' CRLP. No. 6098 o12026 =\\ :\ ') <-r i ,.. , ,q. ,11. ,111 :r* _. - 'l--- ''-? lr{ , -" ---r *--a:)/ DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ory nr\ q IN THE HIGH COURT FOR TTIE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 57l4 of 2026 Date:16. 04. 2026 Between: Sved Vaseemuddin ... petitioner/accused No. I AND The State of Telangana Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana and another ... respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No. I seeking to quash the proceedings in C. C. No.

25l9 of 20225 pending on the file of the XI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cyberabad, at Upperpally, Rajendranagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 32a@) and 35 1(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'). 2. Heard Mr. D. Sudharshan, Ieamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 . I 3. With the consenr of both the leamed counsel, the criminal petition is disposed of at the admission stage on the ground that e'en according to the Iea|ned counsel fbr the petitioners, the matter belbre the learned Tr-ial court has not ripcd for the trial and is at summons. [n view o1- the same. notice in respect of respondent No. 2 I de. fac t o complainant i s d i spensed w-ith. 4. Upon perusaI of the record, it reveals that the learned Magistrate. withour r. ecording sarisfaction and without assigning an)' reaso. s, has taken cognizance agai,st the petitio,ers on 03. 07 .

2025 and issued sumrnons rnechanicalll, and passed cryptic docket order. Therefore, the docket order dated 03. 07. 2025 passed by the learned Magistrare is liable to be quashed. 5. Leamed Assistant public prosecutor has not opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parlies and after perusar of the material available on record, it reveals that the leamed Magistrate has taken cognizance, without recording satisfaction and wit}rout assigning any reasons against the accused and not against the offenoes' through docket order daled 03 '07 '2025 ' 7. It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mitlal v. Central Bureau of Investigationt the Hon'ble Supreme Court hetd 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.

lo GHCL Employees Stock Option Trusl v. India Infoline Limitedz, the Hon'ble Apex Court found fault with the order of the Magistrate in issuing summons when the prima facie Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction about the case against the accused. ln Chief Enforcemnet Olficer v' Videocon Intcrnational Limited3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in while discussing the expression 'cognizance' the means becoming aware of and criminal law 'cognizance' a Judge initiating proceedings word used with respect to Court or in respect of an offence. Taking cognizance would involve application of mind by the Magistrate to the suspected 4 scc 609 '(2015) (20 scc 505 ' t3) (2ooE) 2 scc 492 ' -F Court in Saril Supreme The Hon'ble of ar. r o1l'ence' commission held as follows: (Supra) fu(her Bhorari Mitral's case ' 'Slrr, g/rru \',,tt r'. tkittx'"O',';. ii'i,,,',t! lli. '. ,,,:! d,:;:;;';,! ';,lil!

,i;,:,::'if f"t tntl h' ,,f ntind fi tfu ,\lLtgistrutc 'rr',,ri,,',', thur on '1,'lr""l,',i lr is' rhcrelbre imperatit'c ,,,)i'-i'n'rc an "ye"e' to'consider t:hc ltfagistr'ufc is bound on u pulice u contpltrittl ttr '"pr''t conmrission o! at Io \th,. th! t tha sante i i""' ri*|i,,i,,', us 'ii"l"'t"t ',',ii, ,:,! :':. ::';':,':,: i,'l,l )i,,i',",,i,,,,,i i! ,":;::;,';:,'! :',;i:o;;,1:,T:0":, hc J""s atul oct'iJr. \ '" "' "t"1 ,r,,' rtnl. v c,utsideruliott At st'rPt ',. 1, 1,"',;r=,,r, -n' Lttg i:dttLc. rt* 'ur'. '. ',1,;"':,',;,U;,' ,iu. 'rty,n",n", rhc nwrcrit t,pl,n. ' th. , C. '|)urt h nni. n. \. t. tt.. :. ::,:,:;::,' r-,,i,,p.. , ;,:,-;,,'::;,'1,," iir'o,,,,n. ,t on uhich thc proseculrtttt 1tt'opt (ttsa ttr ttol- " oltl u pri|l(t. facie and Stute of [lttaranchal Ahmatl t'' 8 ln Fokhrudttin anothera. it is held as follows: that haJttre 1''fagislrale cott ",'\?

vcrl,/tclcs r' it is tt'cll settled thul of utt ofl':nie' it is bt, sttitl ttt ltuve tukcn lnperalh'c 'iir"',rr^,' 'og'""''n nr^'i'' ,'rt,' nrotica tt[ the n'lcn'u'iin' antl upplied his ruind rtt or lhc or itt tht police report thc t lagLtliotts rude in lhe 'nn'pinint u polite reporl as'tlrc recaivel. fi'ont a source other than infornntirtrt tht"''iith h neccls littla hr ,n,l t ht' nuttrttl lilL'l \tu. i\truk' appties his mid and is iiirliii ,[; ,;';:",,,,r,',,ii'''r'" 'r,iui"i if. nrr"t'e'l troulJ constitute on t'Jlen'( ,i. ,, ,'i', <tlleyurrons' olfender';hat aguintt thc utlegtd . ,n,1,1,,r'irlrt to ittitiote ,,n",. 'ouig' of rha ',|i',,|i hu' ruktn cosni:ance li',1,1,1,',,",*i,' {,'","i',ni hc (logtti:atlce i\ itt regurd to thc offenca ond not lhe ttf. fence. offender.

directions of the Hon'ble 9 In view of the observations and to supra, the act of in the judgn-rents referred Supretne Court the accused to face criminal trial of summoning issuing process a person orders directing summons to is a sertous issue and such of cryptic orders and cannot be on the basis i to facc crirninal trial I I t I t t (2008) t7 scc tsr I l I I itshoutdbeanorderreflectingapplicationofmindbythe process' and issuing cognizanoo taking Officer while Presiding principles laid in reasons and view of the foregoing 10.

For the judgments cited supra' the the Hon'bte Apex Court in down by is of the grounds' this Court the other going into and without passed by dated 03'07'2025 view that docket order considered of First Class' Magistrate XI Additionat Judicial the leamed of 2025 in C'C'No'2519 Rajendranagar at Upperpally' Cyberabad, this However' quashed' accordingly is liable to be quashed and from taking Magistrate the learned order will not Preclude with law' bY accordance orders a fresh in and Passing cognizance giving reasons' of' tition is disPosed the criminal Pe 11. AccordinglY, shatl stand if any' applications' miscellaneous Pending closed. J. SREENI VAS RAO JUSTICE t6. O4. 2026 week in one Nli", t. tr" C'C' b/o rsp

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.