Mr. Talluri Praveen Raja 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 2026-04-20. Mr. Talluri Praveen Raja v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
[ 330s 1 ! N THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD OF APRIL MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT J SREENIVAS RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE 2026 CRI INAL PETITION NO : 5888 0F BETWEEN: Prabhakar Rao, Aged about-3O Years' Occ. ' Mr. Talluri Praveen Raja, S/o. Talluri USA S;ft*;;" Engineer, R/o. 149 South, Bagdad Rd, Apt 12101, Leander, Texas' prelenly iA1ll. Residing at Mallarim Village, Manuguru Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Telangana. .. :Petitioner/Accused No'1 AND court for the state of 1. The state of Telangana, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Telangana, HYderabad. 2. Smt. PakalapatiPoojitha,Wo. TalluriPraveenraja,Agedabout29years' colony, Bhadrachalam, District . permanent ilo H. wo. it-Z-ag/3/1, Shanthinagar Bhadradri Kothagudem, Telangana. ... Respondent No.
ZDe-facto Complainant that in the circumstances stated in the Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying pleased to call Petiton, the High Court may be Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal of the 40 of 2026, dated 21-01-2026, on the file ioi ,""orO. relating to C. C. No. lroi"l"i la"gishaie of First Class(Criminal Court for Agency Areas)' At gild;n"ffi. registered for offences under Section 85 BNS, 2023 and Sections 4 and upon such perusal, be pleased to quash the oo*rv ironluition Act, 1961, to "nJs crime insofar relate and all further proceedings in said as they "t,"rge "n;t Petitioners/Acrused No. 1 . I. A. N :2OF 26 in the Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased. to Ji"p"n.. with the appearance of the Petitioner/Accused No' 1 pertains to- the 2026, dated 21-01-2026, on the file of the ,"rateo rb'c. c. No. 40 of ir&Jing" At Class(Criminal Court for Agency irOi"i"i tf"gi.
trate of First 4t:t). gh"dr""t"d. 1, the BNS, 2023 and for the offences punishable under Section 85 of Dowry Prohibition Act' 1961' Sections 4 and 5 ot the l. A. NO: 3 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 C. C. No. 40 ol 2026, dated2l-01-2026, on the file of the Judicial Magi'strate of First Class(Criminal Court for Agency Areas), At Bhadrachalam, for the offences punishable under Section 85 of the BNS and ()f Sections 4 and 5 the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, insofar as they relate to the Petitioner / Accuse,l No. 'l . This Petition corning on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri E. Venkata Siddhartha' Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.
1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made l:he following: ORDER AT IIYDERABAD THE TIONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE J. SREENIVAS RAO Date:20. 04. 2026 Between: Mr. Talluri Praveen Raja ... petitioner/accused No. 1 AND The State of Telangana and another ... respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No. l seeking to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 40 of 2026 pending on the fite of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Criminal Court for Agency Areas), at Bhadrachalam, for the offences punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short . BNS') and sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'DP Act'). 2. Heard Sri E. Venkata Siddhartha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Pubtic Prosecutor for respondent No-l. \ \ + 3.
With the consent of both the leamed counsel, the criminal petition isi disposed of at the admission stage on the ground that even accc'rding to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter before th,: learned 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 learned Magistrate without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons has taken cognizarrce and issued summons to the accused and the same is contrary to the principle laid down in Sunil Bharati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigationt. 5. Tne above said submissions are not opposed by the learned Additiorral Public Prosecutor. 6. H.
aving 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 applyrng his mind and without assigning any reasons, ' lzors;4 scc 609 lr L / , especially taken cognizance against the accused and not against the offences through cognizance order passed in C. C. No . 40 of 2026. 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. In GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infotine Limilet, the Hon'ble Apex Court found fautt 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 Oflicer v.
Videocon International Limitei, 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 \1tror:) 4 scc so5 '12008) zscc492 Court in Sunil Bharati Mittal's case (Supra), further held as follows "Sine Qua Nonfor taking cognizance of the offence is the application of mind by the Magistrate ond his satisfaction that the allegations, if prot'ed, would constitute an olfence. It is, therefore, imperative that on a complaint or ctn a police report, the Magistrate is bound to consider the question as to whether the same dtscloses commission of an offence and is required to form such an opinion in this respect.
Wen he a'oes so and decides to issue process, he shall be said to have taken cogdzance. At the stage of taking cognizance, the only consideration b"fr,r" the Court remains to consider judiciously whether the material on which the prosecution proposes to prosecute the accused brings out a primafacie case or not. " 8. In Fakhruddin Ahmad v. Stnte of Uttarsnchal snd another4, it is held as follows: "Nevertheless, it is well settled that before a Magistrate can bz said to have taken cognizance of an offence, it is imperative that he must have taken notice ctf the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the complaint or in the police report or the information receivedfrom a source other than a police report, as the case may be, and the materiul filed therewith.
It needs little emphasis that it is only when the Magistrate applies his mind and is satisfied that the allegations, d proved, would constitute an olfence a'nd decides to initiate proceedings against the alleged offender, that it can be positively stated that he has taken cognizance of the offence. Cognizance is in regard to the olfence and not the tffinder. " 9. [n 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 crimina. l trial cannot be on the basis of cryptic orders and it should n lzoos; 17 ssc 157 \ be an order reflecting application of mind by the Presiding Officer 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 cited supra, and without going into the other grounds, this Court is of the considered view that cognizance order passed in C. C. No. 40 of 2026 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Criminal Court for Agency Areas), at Bhadrachalam, is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. However, this order will not preclude the learned 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. SD/. A. SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,,TRUE COPY" SECTION OFFICER To, am. 1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate At Bhad 2. The Station House Officer, Bhadrachalam lice Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. public 3. Two CCs to the Prosecutor, l-ligh Court of Telangana at Hyderabad lourl 4.
bne CC to Sri E. Venkata Siddhartha, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies GNK/KA \q- { \ C C Tor"il HIGH COURT DATED: Z,0t04tZOZ6 THg S () t 2 5 APfl 202[ * * ORDER CRLP. No. Sggg of 2026 DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION . P(# % ft.. "
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.