Ms. Kondakindi Sakshi Reddy 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. Ms. Kondakindi Sakshi Reddy v. The State of Telangana,. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
[ 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 JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5466 OF 2026 Between: H No Ms. Kondakindi Sakshi Reddy, D/o Krishna Reddy,Aged 40 years, R/o 3-6-20/303, near Vijaya Diagnostic Centre, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad' ... Petitioner/Accused No. 1 AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana at HYderabad. ... Respondent Yalala Venkat Reddy, S/o Chandra Reddy, Age . 50 years, Occ. Agriculture' 2 R/o H. No- 1-59, Gundala Village, Chevella Mandal, Rangareddy District 1 Ydlala Mohan Reddy, S/o Chandra Reddy, Age . 47 yeats, Occ . Agriculture' R/o H. No- 1-59, Gundala Village, Chevella Mandal, Rangareddy District ...
Respondents/De-facto Complainants 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 against the Petitioner/Accused No 1 in C. C. No. 450 o1 2025 pending on the file of the Junior civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First class, RangaReddy District at Chevella. l. A. NO: 2OF 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 the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 in c. c. No. 45O ol 2025 p"noing on the filJof the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, ilangai.
edoy District at Chevetta tilt the present Petition is decided by the Hon'ble High Court ry This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memc-andum of Grounds petition of Sri Ctrr nap Anvesh Kiran, of Criminal ant upon hearing the arguments Additional Public Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalli , and none appeared or the Respondent Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent No. 'l No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COT'RT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGAI{A AT TIYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SR. EEMVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5466 of 2026 Date:13. 04. 2O26 Between: Kondakindi Sakshi Reddy ... petitioner/accused No. I AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Pubtic Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and 2 others ... respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No. l, seeking to quash the proceedings in C. C. No.
450 of 2025 pending on the file of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella, for the offences punishable under Sections 326(e),351(2) ofthe Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short,'BNS')' 2. With the consent of the leamed counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the criminal petition is disposed of at the stage ol admission on the ground that the lea"ned Magistrate has taken cognizance by using rubber ;tamp without recording satisfaction and without assigning any rez sons. In view of the same, notice in respect of respondent Nos. lZ and 3ldefacto complainants is dispensed with. 3. Heard Mr. P. Prasad, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, leamed Add i ional public Prosecutor lor respondent No. I . 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted t rat the leamed Magistrate without recording satisfaction and withotr assigning any reasons has taken cognizance on 12. 08.
2025 and isstr{ d summons to the accused and the same is contrary to the principl laid down in Sunil Bharati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigat ont. 5. The above said submissions are not opposed lry the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. Having considered the rival submissions r rade by the respective parties and after perusal ol the materia l available on record it reveals that the leamed Magistrate has tak: r cognizance, without applying his mind and without assigning any reasons, (2o ' r 5) 4 scc 609 -qEEit!! lcr_. ,. e:yF:_-. V . / especially taken cognizance against the accused and not against the offences through cognizance order, passed in C. C. No. 450 of 2025. 7 . It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati 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 Stock Option Trust v. India Infotine Limiut, 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 Enforcemnet Oflicer v. Videocon International Limiud, 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 (zon) + scc sos ' (20fE) ' 2 scc Court in Sunil Bharati Miltol's case (Supra), I rrther held as follows: "Sine Quo Non for taking cognizance of the oflence is th,' qplicotion of mind bv the Magistrate and his satislaction thot lhe ol,:gations, if proved. would anstitute an oflence.
It is, therefore, impetc'ive that on a conplaint or on a police report, lhe Magislrate is hourul 'o consider the questi<tn as lo whelher lhe same discloses comrn s;ion of an ofence and is required to form such an opinion in lhis r<t rccl. Wen he docs so and decides to issue process, he shall be suid t) have lqken cognizuncc. Al the slage of hking cognizance, lhe onl1, c) tstderdlion before the Court remains to consider judiciously whether I e moterial on u'hich the prosecution proposes to prosecule lhe acct sed brings out o prima. focie case or nol. " 8. ln Fakhruddin Ahmad v State of Uhz ranchal and another4 , it is held as follows: ''Ncvertheless, it is $'ell settled thol belore a Muq stra! ( Lan be said ttt hsve taken cognizonce of an offence, il is inry.
c 'ative lhat he must hqve taken notice ol the accusations ond appliea , is ntind lo lhe allegations made in the complaint or in the police 11 orl or lhe informalion received from a source other lhan a police r(l orl, as the case ma)/ be, and lhe material therev'ilh. lt t'eds Iittle fled emphusis that il is only when lhe Magistrdle applies his t ind and is satisfied that the allegations, if proved, would constitute u offence ond decides lo iniliate proceedings against the alleged <y. fr nder, that il can he positively stated thal he has taken cognizc,r':e of the offence. Cogtizance is in regard to the oflence dt\ not the oflender. " 9.
In view of the observations and directions c,l the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to sup'i , the act of issuing process of summoning the accused to face crir Linal trial is a serious issue and such orders directing summons to a erson to face l criminal trial cannot be on the basis of cryptic order: rnd it should o i:oosy tz scc r:z w be an order reflecting application of mind by the Presiding Ofhcer while taking cognizance and issuing process 10. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments ciled supra, and t t- -Coun without going into the other grounds, this is of the considered view that cognizance order, passed in C. C. No. 450 of 2025 pending on the file of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella" is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed.
However, this order will not preclude the leamed Magistrate flrom taking cognizance and passing orders afresh in accordance with law, by giving reasons. I I . Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. P. C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 /TTRUE COPY'/ \ SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Junior civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First class, RangaReddy District at Chevella 2. The Station House Officer, Chevella P:lice Station' Cyberabad 3. One CC to SRl. CHUNAP ANVESI-I r'! RAN, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana' at Hyderabad [OUT] 5. Two CD CoPies - :'' -=. I1ifld -=--==*. :,---. "---r-r*! €*+5v:€:'-' HIGH COURT DATED: 1310412026 r- sTA ,t //^' ,t* ,io ORDER i[28 APB i. i,; 2 2 . L ,l . >.. :/ '. \:$. 4,', CRLP. No. 5466 o12026 + . // \1 -i: -:rr'',ti". V/ DISPOSING OF THE CRLP 0i'"'
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.