Mohammed Abdul Faheem, 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 2026-04-16. Mohammed Abdul Faheem, v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
13303 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5671 OF 2026 Between: 1 Mohammed Abdul Faheem, Sio. Abdul Raheem, Occ. Private Employee,Age about. 34 years, Rl/o. H. No. 9-44lB/30/A,Noori Nagar Rd No. 6, Hakeempet, Tolichowli,Golconda, Hyderabad, Telangana-500008. ... Petitioner/Accused No. 'l 2. Habeebunissa Begum, W/o. Abdul Raheem Mohammed, Occ Household,Age about. 56 years, Rl/o. H. No. 9-44lB/30/A,Noori Nagar Rd No 6, Hakeempet, Tolichowli,Golconda, Hyderabad, Telangana-500008. ... Petitioner/Accused No. 2 3. Tanveer @ Alias lffath Sultana, Wo. Rafee, D/o. Abdul Raheem Mohammed Occ. Household,Age about. 33 years, Rl/o. H. No. 9-44lB/30/A,Noori Nagar Rd No. 6, Hakeempet, Tolichowli,Golconda, Hyderabad, Telangana-500008. ... Petitioner/Accused No. 3 4. Abdul Raheem Mohammed, Sio. Late MA Habeeb, Age about.
60 years, Occ Household Fl/o. H. No. 9-44iBl30/A,Noori Nagar Rd No. 6, Hakeempet, Tolichowli,Golconda, Hyderabad, Telangana-500008. ... Petitioner/Accused No. 4 AND 1. The State of Telangana, represented by its, Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana Hyderabad, Telangana 2. Ayesha Fatima, W/o. Mohammed Abdul Faheem, Aged about 28 years, Occ. Household, Fl/o. H. No- 16-2-5416867,3rd Floor, Flat No. 303, Masha Allah Apartments, Akberbagh, New Malakpet, Hyderabad, Telangana ... ComplainanU Respondent No. 2 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the cir: r mstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Co I 1 may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 10237 of 2024 (arising out : Crime No. 7Ol2O24 of WPS South West Zone (Hyderabad) Police station), pendir 11 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, against 1t r> Petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 of lPC, Sec- 3 and 4 of D. F' ,Act. l.
A. NO: 2OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circ - mstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Co] 1 may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C. C. No. 10237 of 2024 on re file of the Chief )etitioners Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, against the including personal appearance of the Petitioners, pending disposal : the main criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Merr rrandum of Grounds r:rshir of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri lvlehtab Khan, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeranr;r a, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and none appearel for the Respondent No. 2. The Gourt made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELA}{GANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PET ITION No. 567l of 2026 Datez 16. O4. 2026 Between: Mohammed Abdul Faheem and three others ..
Petitioners AND The State of Telangana and another ... Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. l to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings in C'C'No'10237 of 2024 on the hle of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. Heard Mr. Aashir M Khan, leamed counsel for the petitioners andMr. JithendarRaoVeeramalla,learnedAdditionalPublic Prosecutor for resPondent No. I . 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 petitiofl€rs, tlLr matter before the leamed trial Court has not yet ripened for the trial In view of the sanre, notice in respect of respondent No. 2ldefact,t rrniplainant is dispensed with. 4. During the course of hearing, leamed co rnsel for the petitioners, submitted that the leamed Magistrate, \v l',or.
rt recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons, has tr,l ,-:n cognizance against the petitioners on 29. 08. 2024 and isr; ;d summons mechanically and passed cryptic docket order. Theref rre, the docket order dated 29. 08. 2024 passed by the leamed Magistr: t : is liable to be quashed. 5. Leamed Additional Public Prosecutor has nc opposed the submissions made by the leamed counsel for the petitil ers 6. Having considered the rival submissions madc lr. the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on rt ::ord, it reveals that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance, w i lrout recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons against r re accused and not against the offences, through docket order dated 2() ')8.? 024. 7 . It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigatioar 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. ln GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infotine LimiteP, 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. ln Chief Enforcemnel Oflicer v. Videocon Inlernalional Limircd, 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 ofan offence. Taking cognizance would involve application of mind by the Magistrate to the suspected commission of an offence.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharati Mittal's case (Supra), further held as follows: "Sine Non taking cognizance of the offence is the application of Qua for mintt by the Magistrale and his sotisfaction thot the allegations, if proved, 1 (2015) 4 scc 609 (2013) 4 scc 5os 'z +sz ' lzooe; z scc would. constitute an oflence. It is, therefore, imperolty,, that on a complainl or on a police report, the Magisiate is biund to , onsi(ler the queslion as to whelher the same discloses commission o/ qn t,1. r,nce antl is required b form such an opinion in this respect. WhLn he', oes . so ttrrtl decides to issue process, he shqll be said to h)ve nken cogn,z ,,tce At thc stage oJ taking cognizance, the only consi(leralion bif,r, the Court remoins lo consider judiciously whether the materiai ot t,hith Ilrc proseculion proposes to prosecute the accused bring,; out t ,. inru focre cqse or noL " 8 In Fakhruddin Ahmud v.
State of Uttaranchal rnd onolhera, lt is held as follows: ''Nevertheless, it is well seltletl lhol before a Magis,t ,/e can be suid to huve tuken cognizunce of an ofence. it- is imperuiir. c t tlt he nust havc ktl<err notiG of the ar-. cusotions ond applied hir . ,, ttd to thc o. llegations made in the comploint o, in tii policc rc.. , t '. ' or the information raceiued from a source other than a policc nt (ase moy he. and the naterial filed lhcrewilh. lt neccls littl. emphusi. s lhal it ii only when the Magistrat" applies his mirul anJ it ;t ,. sfietl that the. ollegations, if prored, woukl ciistitute an offence unl iecide. s to iniliate proceedings against lhe alleged ofender, ii-t it ,o, ,,, . oosilively stated that he has taken cognizanie oj rhe offence. Cogn: tttce is it regard to the olfence and not the offender. ', 9.
In view of the observations and directions of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to supra, the rct of issuing process of summoning the accused to face criminal tr i I is a serious issue and such orders directing summons to a person to Iace cr. m. nal trial cannot be on the basis of cryptic orders and it shor I :. be an order reflecting application of mind by the presiding . ,vhile Office- taking cognizance and issuing process. lzooe; rz scc tsz 10. For the foregoing reasons and in view of 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 the cognizance order dated 29. 08. 2024 is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. However, this order will not passing preclude the leamed Magistrate from taking cognizance and orders afresh in accordance with law, by giving reasons. 1 l. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/. A. SREENIVASA REDDY ISTANT REGIST //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, m lly, Hyderabad 1 The )O/ Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, South West Zone P e Station, Hyderabad 2 The Station House Officer, WPS One CC to SRl. AASHIR MEHTAB KHAN, Advocate [OPUC] 3 4 TwoCCstoPUBL|CPRoSEcUToRHighCourtfortheStateofTelangana' at Hyderabad [OUTI 5 Two CD CoPies ADK/ba HIGH COURT 1610412026 DATED: i) i i, /4 o \ ,:) ii ), APfi 7Il'S z i\ -$' . -\- ORDER * l): of 2026 GRLP. No. 5671 OF THE GRLP DISPOSING ,... ( 9i*-
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.