Kummari Bharath kumar 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. Kummari Bharath kumar v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 3303 I 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 JUS'IICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5'145 OF 2026 Between: 1. Kummari Bharath kumar, S/o Kummari Yadaiah, aged about 36 years' Occ. Private Employee, R/o. Plot no. 46/8, H No,2-48l6, Telicom Nagar, Sherilingam Pally village, R. R District. 2. Ravulakolu Hemalatha, D/o R. Krishna, aged about 29 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Plot no. 46/8, H. No. 2-4816, Telicom Nagar, Sherilingam Pally village, R. R District. 3. Kummari Bhargav, S/o. Kummari Yadaiah, aged about 28 years, Occ. Private Employee, R/o. Plot no. 46/8, H. No. 24816, Telicom Nagar' Sherilingam Pally village, R. R District. ... Petitioners/Accused Nos. 3, 4 & 8 AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. Through the S. H. O. Shabad Police Station, Ranga Reddy District. 2.
Tejaswini Kummari, W/o. Bhagath, aged about 20 years, Occ Student, Rio. H. No. 46, Serilingampally, Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District. Presently residing at H. No. 1'1-99/1 , Sankepally Guda, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ... Respondents/Defacto 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 quash the proceedings in c. c. No. 389 of 2025, on the file of Judicial First-class '1 Magistrate at Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, against the Petitioners No to 3/Accused Nos. 3,4 and 8. l. A. NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circu nstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High cour. nay be pleased to stay alt further proceedings in c. c. No. 389 :f 2025, on the file : the Judicial First-class Magistrate at chevella, Ranga Reddy District, against the I etitioners No. 1 to 3/ Accused Nos.
3, 4 and 8 pending disposal of the Main Qtri sh Petition in the interest of the justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing tl'e Memorandum of - Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing tt r arguments of Ms. B. Himavarshini, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Jithentk r Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 z nd none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGAI{A AT TTYDERABAI) THE HONOURABLE SRI ruSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5445 of 2O26 Date:13. 04. 2026 Between: Kummari Bharath Kumar and 2 others ... petitioners/accused No. 3, 4 and 8 AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another ... respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused Nos. 3, 4 and 8, seeking to quash the proceedings in C,C. No.
389 ol 2025 pending on the file ol the Judicial FirsrClass Magistrate at Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNS') and Sections 3 and 4 the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short. 'DP Act'). 2. With the consent of the leamed counsel for the petitioners and the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor, the criminal petition is disposed of at the stage of admission on the grr und that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance by using ubber stamp without recording satisfaction and without assignin,; any reasons. In view of the same, notice in respect of respondent No. 2/defac to complainant is dispensed with. 3. Heard Ms. B. Himavarshini, leamed cour sel for the petitioners and Sri Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, leanr d Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. l. 4.
Leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted t rat the leamed Magistrate without recording satisfaction and withorrr assigning any reasons has taken cognizance on 21. 04. 2025 and issrr, d summons to . the accused and the same is contrary to the principl laid down in Sunil Bhorati Minal v. Central Bureau of Investigt,t'ont. 5. The above said submissions are not opposec ry the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. Having considered the rival submisslons rnade by the respective parties and after perusal of the mater r i available on record it reveals that the leamed Magistrate has tat< rn cognizance, ' 1zo tsy a scc ooo 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. 389 of 2025. 7 .
It is very much relevant to mention that in SzzrT Bharali Mittal supra 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 Slock Option Trust v. India tnfoline Limited, 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. In Chief Enforcemnet Olficer v. Videocon International Limitud , 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 of an offence. Taking cognizance would involve application of mind by the Magistrate to the suspected commission of an offence.
The Hon'ble Supreme a '1zot:y scc 5os (2008) ' 2 scc 492 Court in Sunil Bharali Mittal's case (Supra), lu ther held as follows: "Sine Qua Non for taking cognizonte of the ofence is lha t tplication of mind by the Magistrate and his salisfaction that tlrc dllt gotions, if proved, would constitule an ofence. It is, therefore, imperut ve that on o complaint or on a police report, the Magistrate is bound , t consider lhe question as to whether lhe sume discloses comntis. ion of on olfcnce and is required to form such an opinion in lhis res, ecl. Wen he does so and decides lo issue process, he shall be said t,t twe taken cognizance. At the stage of taking cognizotce, the only ct) \tderation before the Court remains to consider judiciously whether tr ,: mctteriol on v'hich lhe proseculion proposes to prosecute the actt. ed brings oul u prima locie cqse or no!. " 8. In Fakhruddin Ahmad v.
State of Utttranchal and anothera, it is held as follows: "Neverlheless, il is well settled that beJore a Llctr rale can be said to hqve talrzn cognizance of an offence, il is inl, rativ? lhal he musl hqve token notice of the accusations and appliel is mind to lhe ollegations made in the complaint or in the police t t )ort or the intormdtion receivedfrom a source olher than o police te ort, us lhe cose moy be, and the material filed therewith. It t reds little emphasis that ir is only when the Magistrale opplies his t tind qnd is satisfed thql lhe allegations, if proved, would constitute on offence arul decides to iniliate proceedin&s against the alleged cl :nder, that it cqn be positively stoted that he has taken cognizc rce of the rtfience. Cognizance is in regard to lhe oflence o I nol the offender. " 9. In view of the observations and directions < I the Hon'ble .
a, Supreme Court in the j udgments referred to su I the act of issuing process of summoning the accused to face c: minal trial is a serious issue and such orders directing surrmons to e person to face criminal trial cannot be on the basis of cryptic order i and it should ' (2oo8) t7 scs Ls7 Y Officer be an order reflecting application of mind by the Presiding while taking cognizance and issuing process. 10. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid down judgments and by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cited supra, without going into the other grounds, this Court is of the considered view that cognizance order, passed in C. C. No. 389 of 2025 pending on the file of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate at Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, is liable 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. 11.
Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. / i? I,IPX,T"ATi? JYAXT 6 ,TTRUE COPY" OFFICER SECTION To, 1. 2. . ns. n, . , 3. il= HliH{*,iii. fl#Jtffi'Ei'*ffii',*xr," Public Proset 4. Two CCs to Hvderabad [OUT] -8. ' Advocate [oPUCl Himavarshini' ffi-rJt; 5 ;ffi 6 Two CD CoPies HIGH COURT DATED: 1310412026 STAr 1 Y,r E c ) ,r' o 2t26 ,? fr UL ,,v \iD,. t' '''7*, ORDER CRLP. No. 5445 ot 2O26 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION @tl*
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.