Ms. B. Lahari 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 2026-04-21. Ms. B. Lahari 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 TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO Between: Ms. B. Lahari, Aged 29 years Occ: Business, R/o 52, 53 The Lilly's House, Amrutha Avenue, Kismathpur Road, Bandlaguda Jagir, Rajendranagar, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga ReddY Dist. ... Petitioner/Accused No. 2 AND 1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the state of Telangana, Hyderabad. ... Respondent No. I 2. Sri Allam JashuvJReddy, S/o Pratap Reddy, age 34, Occ. business, R/o Plot No. 85, ST. Michei Colony, Bandlaguda Jahir, Rajendranagar "'**::iJ""#,kii'il:lrmant ps 3. station House orricer, Gachibowri. 4. Sub-lnspector of Police, PS Gachibowli ... Respondent No.
4lComplainant petition stated in under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances be pleased to the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may against the quash the charge sheet and the consequentiat prosecution proceedings file of the -;r;,'lt: X Addl' Petitioner/Accused No. 2 in C. C. No. 1 137 of 2024, on the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, Hyderabad. l. A. NO: 2 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 the further proceedings in c. c. No. 1 137 of 2024, on the file of the :--',:;ii*',* X nait. Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the present Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the [Vlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mrs. K. Sandhya Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr.
Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4 of2026 Date:21. 04. 2026 Between: Ms. B. Lahari ... Petitioner AND The State of Telangana and three others. ... Respondents Order: This criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. I 137 of 2024, on the file of the X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, cyberabad, Hyderabad, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused No. 2, for the offences punishabl,e under Secrions 20(bxii)(A) of the Narcoric Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, I 985. 2. Heerrd Mrs. K. Sandhya Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.. tithendar Rao veeramalla, learned public Additional Prosecutoi: appearing on behalf of respondent No. l .
with their consent, the criminal petition is disposed of at the admission stage on the ground that even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter before the trial Court is not yet ripened for trial. 3. 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 cognizance and issued summons to the petitioner and the same is contrary to the principle laid down inSunil Bharati Mittut v. Central Bureau of Investigationt. 4. The above said submissions are not opposed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 5.
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 by using rubber stamp without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons, especially taken cognizance against the accused and not against the offences through cognizance order passed in C. C. No. l137 of 2024. 6. It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittal supra the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order of issuing 1 1zots1 4 scc 609 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. Indio 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 Officer v. Videocon International Limited, the Hon'ble Supreme Court white discussing the expression 'cognizance' held that in criminal law 'cognizance' means bec,cming 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 ,:ommission of an offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharati Mittal's case (Supro), further held as follows: "Sine Qua Non for taking cognizance of the offence is the application of mind by the Magistrate and his satisfaction that the allegations, if proved, woulat constitute an offence. It is, therefore, imperative that on a compiaint or on a police report, the Magistrale is bound to consider the questrcn as to whether the same discloses commission of an ffince and is required to form such an opinion in this respect.
When he does so and decides to issue process, he shall be said to have taken cognizance. At the stage of taking cognizance, the only consideration before the Court remains to consider judiciously whether the material on which the prosecution proposes to prosecute the accused brings out a prima facie case or nol. " 2 1zora1 4 scc sos 3 1zooe1 z scc. 4gz *r'- i i. , "', "i4 7 ln Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal and anothero, it is held as follows: "Neverthele. ss, il rs well settled thot before a Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offence, it is imperative that he must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the complaint or in the police report or the information received from a source other than a police report, as the case mcy be, and the material filed therewith.
It needs little emphasis that it is only when the Magistrate applies his mind and is satisfied that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence and 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 offence and not the ffinder. " 8. In 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 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 g.
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. 1137 of 2l24,on the file of the X Additional tan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, |! eEonoli 4 (2008) t7 sccLsT quashed' and accordingly is liable to be quashed Hyderabad, will not preclude the learned Magistrate from However, this order with law' passing orders afresh in accordance taking cognizance and by giving,'easons. is disposed of' Accordingly, the criminal petition 10 Pendingmiscellaneousapplications'ifany'shallstandclosed' ir i SDI. P. C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY" SECTION OFFICER To, Hyderabad 1. The X Addl. MetroPo litan Magistrate, KukatPallY, 2. The Station House Officer , Potice Station Gachibowli, Hyderabad 3. One CC tc,Mrs. K. Sandhya Reddy, Advocate [OPUCI 4.
Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 5. Two CD CoPies KAM/KA S{- HIGH COURT DATED i 21,10412026 ,gr. -i... sR\ ( ! C) ! , O 5 IP H 2[2fi ORDER 2 * CRLP. No. 4784 ot 2026 * r:,riTfl! DISPOSING OF THE GRIMINAL PETITION : ti li il i! i: go6a I I I I i Sdp
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.