G. Vijaya Bhaskar, 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 2026-04-13. G. Vijaya Bhaskar, v. The State of Telangana,. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY. THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETIT]ON NO: 5456 OF 2026 Between: years, Occ' 1. G. Vijaya Bhaskar, S/o. G. Padma Naidu, Aged about 48 Near Ausinesi, R/o. Door No. 1-23110, Flat No. 3A, Adarsh Garden Homes, KamineniHospitals,l00FtRoad,Poranki,Vijayawada(Rural)'Krishna District, Andra Pradesh. about 40 2. Damacharla Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o. D. Jagan Mohan Rao, Aged District, Andhra years, Occ. Business, R/o. 34, Turpunaidupalem, Prakasam Pradesh (temporarily at Hyderabad) ... Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 & 2 AND Public Prosecutor, High Court, 1 The State of Telangana, Represented by its ... ResPondent No' 1 Hyderabad. 2 S. Venkatesh, CEO, Ms/ Mint Environ Private Limited. , A Company registered its office at Plot No 17, 1't Floor, Ram under the Companies Act, 2013 having State, and Ram Exclusive, Khanamet, Madhapur, Telangana ...
Respondent No. 2/ComPlainant circumstances in Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the stated court may be pleased to the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High of the ll Additional Junior quash the proceedings in c. c. No. 208912025, on the files class, Ranga Reddy District, civil Judge cum X Additional Judicial Magistrate First at Kukatpally in the interest of justice and pass such other Order or Orders as the Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case' l. A. NO: 1 OF 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 w stay all the proceedings in the case including the appearance of the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 & 2 in C. C.
No- 208912025, on the files of the ll Additional Junior Civil Judge cum X Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally and pass such other order or orders as the court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case This Petrtion coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitron and upon hearing the arguments of Mr' M. R-K. Chakravarthy, counsel representing Sri Rajesh Maddy, Advocate for the Petitioners the Sri Jrthendar Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COTJR T FOR THE STATE OF TELAI\GANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOTJRABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5456 of 2026 Datez L3. 04. 2026 Between: G. Vijaya Bhaskar and another ... petitioners/accused Nos. I and 2 AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State ofTelangana, Hyderabad and another ...
respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. l and 2, seeking to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 2089 of 2025 pending on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge cum X Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpatly, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406,468,471 md 467 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short,'tPC'). 2. With the consent of the leamed c-ounsel for the petitioners and the leamed Additionat Public Prosecutor, the criminal petition is disposed of at the stage of admission on the ground that the leamed Magistrate has taken cognizance by using rubber stamp without recording satisfaction and without assigning umy reasons. ln view of the same, notice in respect of respondent No. 2ldefacto complainant is dispensed with. 3. Heard Mr. M. R. K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel representing Mr.
Rajesh Maddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. I . 4. Leamed counsel fbr the petitioners submitted that the leamed Magistrate without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons has taken cognizance on 02. 08. 2025 and issued summons to the accused and the same is contrary to the principle laid down in Sunil Bharati Mittal v. Central Bureau of I nvestigationt. '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, ' rs . r r scc ooo w J 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 C. C. No. 2089 of 2025 - 7 .
It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittal supra the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that ttre 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. kt GHCL Employees Stock Oplion Trust v. India Infoline Limirct, the Hon'ble Apex Court found fault with the order of the Magistrate in issuing surunons when the Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction about the prima facie case against the accused. ln Chief Enforcemnel Ol/icer v. Videocon International Limikl the ' Hon'ble Supreme Court white 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 (zo t3) a scc sos ' (zooE) z scbc,-l ' Court in Sunil Bhorati Miltal's case (Supra), further held as follows: ''Sine Non the olfence is Quu Jbr tuking cognizunce of the applicaliott of mitd b. t, lhe ll[agi. \lrote and his satisfaclion thal the allegations, if proved, wruld conslitule an ofence. It is, therefore, imperative lhal on o comploitrt or on a police rcport, lhe Magislrate is botmd to consider thc queslion as lo *,helher lhe same discloses commi. ssion of an oJfence and is rcquired lo form such an opinion in this respect. lYhen he docs so und deckles lo issue process, he shull be said to have taken cognizance At the stage of taking cognizance, lhe only consideralion belore the Courl renuins lo consider judiciously whether lhe moterial on which lhe prosecution proposas to prose(ute lhe accused brings oul a prinq. [oci. , cose or nol. " 8, In Fakhruddin Ahmad v.
Stdte of Uttaranchal and another4 , it is hetd as follows: ''\avertheless it is v,ell settled thal before a Mugistrale cqn be said to have takan cot? Eanca of an oflence, it is inperative thot he must hm,e leken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the conplaint or in the police report or the informalion reLeived from u source other lhdn a police report, as the cuse mny be, and the material /iled thtrewith. It needs little emphasis thal il is only when the Magislrak, applies his mind and is solisfed that the ollagolions, if proved, would conslitute an oflence and decitles b iniliate proceedings againsl the alleged offender, that it c'qn he positivelv stated that he hqs tuken cognizance of the offence. Cogtrizcmce is in regard to the offence and not lhe o/fcnder. 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 summons to a person to face criminal trial cannot be on the basis of cryptic orders and it should ' (2008) t7 scc I57 w be an order reflecting application of mind by the Presiding Officer while taking cognizance and issuing process. 10. For the foregolng 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. 2089 of 2025 pending on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge cum X Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally is tiable to be quashed and accordingly quashed.
However, this order will not preclude the leamed 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/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFIGER To, 1. The ll Additional Junior civil Judge cum X Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally' Police Station, Cyberabad' 2. The Station House Officer, Madhapur 'ryl -a-, . / 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad (OUT) 4 One CC to Sri Rajesh Maddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies DUka HIGH COURT \ \ DATED: 1310412026 ,1:::{lrt ,t,'< <" . f. ,.. )-ii,) 'i . -) Z\ ? 0 APR 2t]2fi c-\ 1) -lr. ' , :1. ORDER n 2026 CRLP. No. 5456 of OF CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED * CDQ' @ Q\ s*
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.