Koyalkar Giridhar, 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 2026-04-29. Koyalkar Giridhar, 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 WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 667 9 0F 2026 Between: 1. Koyalkar Giridhar, S/o Narasinga Rao, aged about 48 years, Occ: Business, Rl/o l{. No. 2-112519312, New Nallakunta, Musheerabad Hyderabad. 2.. Koyalkar Had, S/o Narasinga Rao, aged about 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o H. No. 2-1 125193/2, New Nallakunta, tVlusheerabad Hyderabad. ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No. 1 & 2 AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana Hyderabad. 2. J. Nandeshwari, Wo Late J. Balaji, R/o H. No. 2-2-1125193t2, Amberpet, Hyderabad. . ,. 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.
't669 of 2O2S on the file of the learned Vl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Uppal, L. B. Nagar, and quash the proceedings therein insofar as the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, for the alleged offence under Section 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of BNS. 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. 1669 of 2025 on the file of the learned vl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Uppal, L. B. Nagar, insofar as the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned. This Pr-'tition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Vemula Vamshi, Advocate for the Petitioner and of sri.
Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the state of rerangana on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and None appeared for Respondent no. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE TITGH COURT FOR THE STATE OFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6679 of 2026 Datel29. 04. 2026 Between: Koyalkar Giridhar and another ... Petitioners AND State of Telangana 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. 1669 of 2025, on the file of the leamed VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Uppal at L. B. Nagar. 2. Heard Mr. Vemula Vamshi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1 . 3.
With the consent of both the leamed counsel, the criminal petition is diggred of at the admission stage on the ground that even according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the matter --i before the learned Trial Court has not ripened for the trial yet. ln vieu,of the same, notice in respect of respondent No. 2 is dispensed with 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Magistrate, without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons, has taken cognizance against the petitioners and issued summons mechanically and passed cryptic docket order. Therefore, the docket order passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be quashed 5 Leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submissions made by the leamed counsel for the petitioners 6.
Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance, without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons against the accused and not against the offences, through docket order. 7. It is very much relevant to mention that it Sunil Bharati Mifial v. Centrsl Bureau of Investigationt theHon,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 Infoline Limitet, 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 Offtcer v. Videocon International Limited, the Hon,ble Supreme Court .
cognizance, while discussing the expression held that in criminal law 'cogrrizance' 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 Court in Sunil Bharati Mittal's case (Supra), further held as follows: ' lzors; + scc ooe '(2013) 4 SCC 505 I lzooe; z scc aez '--'r "Sine Qua Non for taking cognizance of the ollence is the application of nincl by lhe Magistrate and his salisfacti<tn thal the allegations, if -proved, woLtld cottstitute an ofence. It is, therefore, imperative that on a complainl or on a police report, the Magistrate is bound to consider the qucslion as lo t'helher lhe sdme discloscs commission of an offcnca und is requircd lo form such an opinion in this respect. When Itc docs so and decidas to issue process, he shall ba said to huve taken cognizance. At lh.
' stage of taking cognizance, lhe only consideratbn beJbra the Court runlains to consider judiciously whelher the materiul on which the prosecution proposes lo prosecute the accused brings oul d prinuldcie casc or not. " 8. In Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal and anothera , it is held as follows "Neverthalcss, it is well settlcd that before a Magistrate can bc suid to have tuken cognizance of an offence, il is imperative lhQt Itc nut. yt ltave toktn notice of the occusations and dpplied his mind to thc ullagations macla in the complaint or in the police report or the infornwlion receit,ed. from a source other than a police report, as the cast nay be, and the material filed therewith. lt needs li le cmphusis thal it ii only when the Magistrate applies his mind ond is setisfed thot the ullegalions, if proved, would constilute un ofence und decides to initiutc proceedings agoinst the alleged olfender, that it can be posiliraly stated that he has taken cognizance of the oJfence.
Cogruzoncc is in regard lo the offence and not the offendcr. " 9. ln view of the observations and directions of the Hon'ble Supremc 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 be an order reflecting application of mind by the Presiding Officer while taking cognizance and issuing process. o lzoos; tz scc tsz ii. 10. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the principles laid down by the Hon,ble Apex Court in the judgmerrts crted, supra, and without going into the other grounds, this Court is of the considered view that the cognizance order is liable to be quashed 44d,. gcpordingly quashed. However, this order will not preclude . trl . - the leamed Magishate 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. ^'3&S,ifiihEt? SiRiH //TRUE COPYII To ECTION OFFICER 1. The VI Additio nal Metropolitan Magistrate At L. B. Nagar Medc h alkajgiri District, Uppal 2 The Station House Officer Uppal Police Station, 3 Two CCs Rachako p nda to ublic District Prosecutor High Court Hyderabad for the State [OUT] of Telangana, at 4. One CC to Sri. Vemula Va mshi, Advocate 5. Two [OpUCj CD Copies PrlKA i I I I HIGH COURT DATED: 2910412026 THE S 14 0 Y {\ ORDER :,) O 5IIAY CRLP. No. 6679 of 2026 * \: DISPO$ING OF THE CRL. PETITION LL
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.