Ishit Bhushan Singh 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 2026-04-21. Ishit Bhushan Singh v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6111 OF 2026 Between: Job lshit Bhushan Singh, S/o Shashi Bhushan Singh, Aged about 26 years, Occ. Vikas Nagar, Lucknow, Searching, R/o 529GHN251, Mayur Vihar, Kalyan Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. ... Petitioner/Accused AND 1. The State of Telangana, Through Public Prosecutor of High Court, At Hyderabad. 2. Kumari Shivani Lalwani, D/o Mahesh Lalwani, Aged 28 years, Occ. Program Manager at Amazon, R/o Jyothi Botanica, Golden Habitat, Anjaiah Nagar, Gachibowli, Serilingampally Mandal, R. R. District. ... Respondents/Defacto Complainant petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandurn of Grounds of Criminat Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C. C. No.
862 of 2025, on the file of lX Additional Metropolitan Magistrite, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally against the Petitioner/Accused. t. A. 10F 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. 862 of 2025, on the file of lX Additional Meiropolitan Magistrate, Ringa Reddy District at Kukatpally including appearance of the Petitioner/Aclused pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearingthe arguments of Sri S. Ram Reddy, Advocate petitioner for and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public the prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER '-7 TN THE IIIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF ANA AT ITYDERABAD THE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.
SRE,ENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6l ll of2026 Date:21. 04. 2026 Between; Ishit Bhrshan Singh petitioner/accused AND The Stae of Telangana and another . respondents o ER This criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in c. c. No. g62 of 2025 pending on the file of the IX Additional Metropotitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, for the offences punishable under section 67 of the Information and Technology Act, and Sections 506, 50') and 354 of the Indian penal Code, 1g60. 2. Fleard Sri S. Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithendar Rao veeramalla, learned Additional public Prosecutor for respondent No. l. 3. ryith the consent of both the learned counsel, the criminal petition is disgo*d of at the admission stage on the ground that ;-, h even according to the leamed counsel for the petitioner, the before the leamed Trial Court has not riped for the trial yet and at the stage of summons.
In view of the same, notice in respect responden t No. Z I defacto complainant is dispensed with. 4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons has cognizance and issued Summons to the accused and the contrary to the principle taid dorvn in Sunil Bharati Mittal Central B ureau of ltlvestigationt. 5. The above said submissions are not opposed by the Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. Having considered the rival submissions made respective parties and after perusal of the material available record it reveals that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance without applying his mind and without assigning any especially taken cognizance against the accused and not against offences through cognizance order passed in C. C. No -862 of 2025' (zots) 4 scc 609 ' 7.
It irs very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittul supra the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order of issuing plocess to accused to face criminal trial is a serious issue. Such surnmoning cannot be done on mere asking and the Court has to record reasons for summoning a person. In GHCL Employees Stock O\,tion Trust v. India Infotine Limilet, 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 tlre prima facie case against the accused. ln Chief Enforce,,nnet Offt. cer v. Wdeocon International Limiled, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the expression 'cognizance' held that in criminal law 'cognizance' means becomirrg 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 Court in Sunil Bharati MittaPs case (Supra), further held as follows: "Sine Qua Nonfor taking cognizance of the offence is the application o-f mind by the MaSistrate ond his satisfaction that the allegations, rf scc so5 'eon)4 1zoot1 2 scc 492 re\ \ a\ \ proved, would constitute an offence. It is, therelfore, imperative that on a_complaint or on a police report, tta Magislrate is bound to consider the question os to whether the same iiscroses commission of an and is required to ? ffr! "" form such an opinton in this respect. i{hen he does so and decides to issue process, ie shalt be said to have tarren cognizance- At the stage of taking cognizance, the only consideration before the court remains to considerjudiciously whet'her the material on which the prosecution proposes to prosecite the accused brings out a primafacie case or not. ,' 8 ln Fakhruddin Ahmod v.
stote of (Jttoranchal and anothera, it is held as follows: "Nevertheless, it is weil settred that before a Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offence, it is imperative that he must have taken notice of the accusatins and applied his mind to the allegations made in the complaint or in tte poitce report or the inJbrmation receivedfrom a source other than a police report, as the case moy be, and the material filed therewith. n needs little emphasis that it is only when the Magistrate applies his mind and is satisfied that the allegations, if proved, woulclLonstitute an offence and decides to initiate proceedings against the alleged offenaii, ttnt it can be positively stated that he rns taken cognizance of ttu offence. cognizance is in regard to the offeni 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 act of issuing process of summoning the accused to face criminal trial is a serious issue and such orders directing I 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. 41zoos; n scc sf 'l 10. For':he foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid down by tlre Hc'n'ble Apex Court in the judgments citej supra, and without g,cing into the other grounds, this Court is of the considered view that cognizance order passed in C. C. No. g62 of 2025 pending on the file of the IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, is liable to be quashed ard accordingly quashed. However, this order will not preclude t.
he leamed Magistrate from taking cognizance and passing orders afresh in accordance with law, by giving reasons. 11. Accrtrdingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- P. C. SULEKHA DEVI I ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,, //TRUE COPYII i I I I To, ECTION OFFTCER 1. The lX ' Adcritional Metropolitan I Magistrate, a Reddy Kukatpally. District at 2. The Station Hcuse Officer, Madhapur police Station, Cyberabad. t to rhe Public p'o""t'iJi iiiftffi; reransana at Hyderabad lJ;rt"t 4. One CC to Sri S. Ram R leddy' Advocate toPucl 5. Two cD copie:s GNK/KA \qr HIGH COURT DATED i 2110412026 I l:. :. -:13. ;$ 1:l ii ii-lE Si,i t o C) z. 2 5 APB 7{l2fi * "+ . -, ORDER CRLP. No. 6111 of 2026 CRIMINAL PETITION DISPOSING THE ,S& g &6-
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.