Mohammed Bin Abdullah, v. 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 2026-04-22. Mohammed Bin Abdullah, v. State of Telangana,. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 33031 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAO WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION N O: 6184 OF 2026 Between: Mohammed Bin Abdullah, S/o Abdullah Bin Omer, Aged about 46 years, Occ Advocate, Rl/o H. No. 17-3-19816, Yasrab Nagar, yakutpura, Hyderabad. ... Petitioner And ,| State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2 N. Harinder, Sub-lnspector of Police, PS Rein Bazar, Hyderabad. ... Respondents 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 pertaining to cc No. '10959 of 2021 on the file of the vlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad and quash the proceedings against the Petitioner. 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 stay all further proceedings in cc No. 10959 of 2021 on the file of the Vlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Mohammed Adam, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 'l and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER ry IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6184 of 2026 Date:22. 04. 2026 Between: Mohammed Bin Abdutlah ... petltroner AND 'fhc State of Telangana and another ...
respondents ORDER 'fhis Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings ln C. C. No. 10959 of 2021 pending on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Section 420 ol the lndian Penal Code, 1860 and l2(1)b) of the Indian Passport Act, 1967 2. Heard Sri Mohammed Adam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. I . J Witt tt . consent of both the leamed counsel, the criminal petition is disposed of at the admission stage on the ground that even according to the leamed counsel for the petitioner, the matter before the leamed Trial Court has not riped for the trial yet- In view of the same, notice in respect of respondent No. Zldefacto complainant is dispensed with. 4.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the leamed Magistrate without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons has taken cognizance and issued summons to the accused and the same is contrary to the principle laid down h Sunil Bharati Mittal v- Central Bureau of Investigationt. 5. The above said submissions are not opposed by the leamed 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 learned Magistrate has taken cognizance without applyng his mind and without assigning any reasons, especially taken cognizance against the accused and not against the ' 12ot sy n scc oo9 offences through cognizance order passed in C. C. No. 10959 202t. 7.
lt is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Mittal supra the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the issuing process to accused to face criminal trial is a serious Such summoning cannot be done on mere asking and the to record reasons for summoning a person. ln GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Limirct, the Hon,ble Apex Court found fault with the order of the Magistrate in summons when the Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction about the prima facie case against the accused. In Enforcemnet Oficer v. Videocon International Limitet, Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the expression . cognizance, 'cognizance' held that in criminal law becoming au are of and the word used with respect to Court Judge initiating proceedings in respect of an offence. cognizance would involve application of mind by the Magistrate the suspected commission of an offence.
The Hon,ble ' 1zo B; a scc sos t (loos) z scc qq: Court in Sunil Bharati Mittal's case (Supra), further held as follows: " Sine Qua Non for taking cognbance of the oJlence is the application of mind by the Magislrqte and his satisfaction that the ollegations, if proved, would constitute an ollence. It is, therefore, imperative that on a complaint or on a police report, the Magistrale is. bound to consider the (luestion as to whether the same discloses commission of an ffince and is required lo lorm such an opinion in this respect. llhen he does so and decides to issue process, he shall be said to have taken cognizance. At the stage of taking cognizance, lhe only consideration before the Courl remaiLs to consider judiciously whether the material on which the prosecution proposes to prosecute the accused brings oul o primalacie case or not- " 8. ln Fakhruddin Ahmad v.
State of afiaranchal and another4 , it is hetd as follows: "Nevertheless, it is well seltled that before a Magistrate can be said to huve taken cognizance of an offence, il is imperative thal he must have laken notice of the accusatiora and applied his mind to the allegqtions ntade in lhe complaint or in the police reporl or the information receivedfrom a source other than a police report, as the case ma! be, and the mateial frled therewilh. lt needs little emphasis that it is only when the Magistrate applies his mind and is satisfed thdt the allegutions, if proved, would constitute an ofence and decides to initiate proceedings against the alleged ollender, that it can be posilively staled that he has taken cognizance of the offence. Cognizance is in regard to the offence and not the ofender. " 9.
In view of the observations and directions of the Hon'ble S upreme 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 o 1zoo8; tz scc tsz I be an order reflecting application of mind by the Presiding Officer while taking cognizance and issuing process. t 10. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid down by the Hon'blc 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. 10959 of 2021 pending on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, is liabte to be quashed and accordingly quashed.
However, this order will not preclude the leamed Magistrate fiom taking cognizance and passing orders afresh in accordance with law, by giving reasons t I . Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/. AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I <--L //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Vlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad City' 2. The Station House Officer' Reinbazar Police Station, Hyderabad court of Telangana at Hyderabad 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High [ouT] +. bne CC to Sri lr/ohammed Adam, Advocate [OPUCI 5 Two CD CoPies b GNK '-\-#"--. -*fl HIGH COURT DATED: 2210412026 . : '.. '.. _1. - ,t. - /i\u" / . ) ll '') n ? fl? fi i- A? [1'] z I il, :. \ \'.. 2 "' '. \ + *. ":i f,:'-- ::rJ 1T '1-i- .. . , ORDER CRLP. No. 6184 ot 2026 DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION \4 l! " 1A
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.