Mohammad Sanaulla 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 2026-03-17. Mohammad Sanaulla v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF T/ARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO i 1157 0F 2026 BETWEEN: 1 Mohammad Sanaulla, S/o lvlohd. Yousuf Sab, Age: 54 years, Occ: Helper, Rlio H. No. 1266, 3'd Cross, Right Side, Santhi Nagir, Shimoga, Vinobanagar, Karnataka State. 2 Javeed Ahmed, S/o Late Abdul Razaq, Age: 65 years, Occ: Helper, Rl/o H-No. 7-3, RT Road Right Side, PWD Quarters, opp. Road, Shimoga, Shivamogga, Karnataka State. ... Petitioners/A4 & A7 AND '1 . The State of Telangana, Rep by its public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. . .. RespondenUState 2. Sri Mohd. Yahiya, S/o Mohd. Abdul Khader, age: 59 years, private Occ: Business, Rl/o H. No. 1 7-2-B4Ol3lA, Madannapet, Market, Hyderabad. ...
RespondenUDefacto-Com plainant 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 and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in cc No. 7761 of 2022 on the file of the VIt Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 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 all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioners in cc No. 7761 of 2022 On the file of the Vll Additional Chief Metropolitan lr/lagistrate, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the N/ -. norandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Ms. Monica p.
pole, Advocate for the Petitioners and sri Jithender Rao Veeranz Ia, tearned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and r rne appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1157 of 2026 Date:17. 03. 2026 Between Mohammad Sanaulla and another Petitioners/Accused Nos. 4 and 7 AND 'lhe State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State ol Telangana and another Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been fitcd by thc petitioners accused Nos. 4 and 7 seeking to quash the / proceedings in C. C. No. 776l of 2022 pending on the file o[ the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for lhe offence punishable under Section 42O read with 34 of thc Indian Penal Codc, 1860. '2. Learncd counsel for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to the order dated 02. O2.
2026, he sent personal notice to respondent No. 2 to the correct address mentioned in the cornplaint as well as the charge sheet by way of registered post with acknowledgtsent due and the sarne was retllrned with a postal end()rsernent 'no such person' and he lled a Mcrno, vicle USR No. 77!. A7 of 2026 dated 12. 02. 2026. Ar per Secrion 27 of the (icnerai Clauscs Act, 1897, it amounts to c c. cmed scrvice. 3. With the consent of Ms. Monica p. pole, l:arned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jithendar Rao Ve :ramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent ,lo. 1, the criminal petition is being disposed of at the admission s _ag<:. 4. From perusal of thc record, it reveals tt- at on 25. 10. 2022, the learncd IVIagistratc, without recordinll satisfaction and without assigning any rcasons, took cogn i: :rnce agzlinst t he petitioners and othcr accused arld not agairr ;t thc offcnce and issued sLtmmons to them ancl the same is cor t -arv to Iaw. 5.
[t is v<:ry much relcvant to mention thil in Sunil Bharati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigat i )D1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order of issuing ,roccss t<t accused to facc criminal trial is a serious issue. Such: :rmmoning cannot be dcne on mcrc asking and the Court has trr record reasons for surnmoning a person. In GHCL Employees Sl ock Option Trust w. India Infoline Lirnitedz, thc Hon,ble Apor( Court found fau lt with the order of t[-re Magistrate in issuing s,r lTlntons when the Magistrate has not recorded his satisfactio r about t l-r e prima ' izo rs; ,t scc (2o ' l 3) 1 scc 5os . ) facie case against the accused. In Chief Enforcernent Officer w. Videocon International Limitedo, the Hon,b1e Supreme Court while discussing the expression 'cognizance' held that in criminal Iau, 'cognizance' means becoming aware of and the word used with respect to Court or a Judge initiating proceedings in respect of ar-r offence.
Taking cognizance wouid involve application of mind by the Magistrate to the suspected comrnission of an offence- The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharati Mittal,s case supre, hrrther 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, u,ould constitute an offence. [t is, Lherefore, irnperative that on a cornplainL or or-r a police report, the Magistrate is bou nd to consider the question as to whether the sarne discloses cornrnission of an offence and is required to form such an opinion in this respect. When he does so and decides to isslre process, he shall be said to have taken cognizance. At trre stage of taking cognizance, the only consideration beforc the Court remarns to consider judiciously whelher the rnaterial on rnhich the prcsecution proposes to prosecrrte the accused brings out a prirna facie case or not. " 6. In Fakhruddin Ahrnad w.
State of Uttaranctral and another+, it is held as follows: "Nevertheless, it is well settled that before a Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an ' (2008) 2 SCC ,192 ' (2008) I 7 scc l-57 \ offence, it is imperative that he mr. rst hav€ taken notice of the accusations and applied his rnind t r the allegations made in ( he complaint or rn the polir r report or the informaLion receivcd from a source oth,] tha n a police report, as the case ma5. be, and th: material filed therewith. It needs little emphasis that it i ; only when the Magistrate applies his mind and is s:r isfied that the allegations, if proved, would constitute rn offence and decicles to initiate proceedings against the , lleged oflender, that it can be positively stated that he has taken . r cognizance of the offencc- Cognizance is i regard to the oflence and not the offencler. " 7.
In view ol Lhe observations and direc, lns of the Hon'ble Sr' preme Court in the judgrncnts referr<:d -, ' supra, the act of issuing proccss for summoning an accus<:cI 1-o face a crimin a1 trial is a serioLls issuc and such orders dire()l Lng the issuance of sl-lrnrnons to a person to face criminal trial <:i nnot be passed on the basis of crypLic orders and it shor-rld br: an order reflecting due application of mind by the Presiding I fficer while taking cognizance and issuing process. a. For the foregoing rcasons as well r s in view of thc principles Iaid down by thc [{on'ble Apex Corr 't in the judgments cited supra, and without going into the other ;rounds, this Courl is of the considered view that the cognizar r re order passed in C. C. No. 776 1 of 2022 pending on the file cf the VII Additionai Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, I{yderaba<l is liab1e to be quashed and is acco;pCingly quashed. Howeve . r , this order will not /.
-5 preclude the learned Magistrate frorn taking cognizance and passing orders afresh in accordance with law, by giving reasons. 9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of Pending misccllaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- V. HARI PRASAD DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// C SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Vll Additional Chief l\/etropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Saidabad Police Station, Hyderabad City. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad touTl 4. One CC to Ms. Monica P. Pole, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies GNI(kam ,W HIGH COURT DATED: 1710312026 -! '_iES 7;l \' o O 1 nAfl ? ll? fi _t- o ORDER . L 'i )r:.. -.... -. :C CRLP. No. 1157 ot 2026 tii DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION th n0
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.