Gurrala Venkat 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 2026-03-02. Gurrala Venkat Reddy v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
33031 [ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2953 0F 2026 Between: years, 1. Gurrala Venkat Reddy, S/o. Anthi Reddy, Age. 41 Occ. Agriculture' R/o. Chandupatla Village, Maddirala Mandal, Suryapet District. 2. Elipeddi Malla Reddy, S/o. Sathi Reddy, Age. 47 yeas, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Polumalla Village, Maddirala Mandal, Suryapet District. 3. Navulla Malla Reddy, S/o. Linga Reddy, Age. 57 years, Occ. Practicing Advocate and Agriculture, R/o. H. No. 8-'120, Maddirala Village and Mandal, Suryapet District. ... Petitioners/Accused No. 1 to 3 AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad Through S. H. O. Maddirala Police Station' Suryapet ... ResPondent District. 2. Vallapur Mallaiah, S/o. Lingaiah, Age. 44 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Maddirala Village and Mandal, Suryapet District.
... RespondenUDe-facto complainant 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 in connection with the cognizance order dtd. 31 . 12. 2020, passed in c. c. N. 1064 of 2O2O on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thungathurty, Suryapet District, and quash the same by allowing the above petition. l. A. NO: 1OF 2126 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandurn of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay of all further proceedings, including appearance of the Petitioners Accused No. 1 to 3 in C. C N. 1064 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thungathurty District pending disposal of the above criminal petition.
This Petition ,loming on for hearing, upon perursing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Gourt made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO Date:02. 03. 2026 Between: Gurrala Venkat Reddy and two others ... Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad Through S. H. O. Maddirala police Station, Suryapet District and another ... Respondents ORDER This criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. l to 3, seeking to quash the proceedings in c. c. No. l064 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First class at Thungathurthy. 2- Heard Mr. Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.
Jithender Rao veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. l. 3. Vr'ith the consent of both the learned counsel, the criminal petition is disposed of at the admission stage on the ground that even ac,oording to the leamed counsel for the petitioners, the matter before the learned Trial Court has not ripened for the trial yet. In view ol'the same, notice in respect of respondent No. 2ldefacto complainant is dispensed with. 4. Upon perusal of the record, it reveals that the learned Magistrate, without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons, has taken cognizance against the petitioners on 31. 12. 2020 and issued surtmons mechanically and passed cryptic docket order. Therefore, the docket order dated 31. 12. 2020 passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be quashed. 5. Lt:amed Assistant Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submissions made by the leamed counsel for the petitioners. 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 cognizarrce, without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons against the accused and not against the offences, through docket order dated 31. 12. 2020. 7. It is verymuch relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittat v. Central Bureau of Investigotionr 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 Infoline Limilert, 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 Olftcer v.
Wdeocon International Limitet, 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 t lzors;4 scc 609 z (zotl) 4 scc 5os ," 3 r (zoos) 2 scc 492 commission of an offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bhara,ti Mittal's case (Supra), further held as follows: "Sine Quu Nonfor taking cognizance of the offence is the application af mind by the Magistrate and his satisfaction that the atlegations, d proved, would constitute an offence. It is, therefore, imperative that on a complaint or on a police report, the Magistrate is bound lo consider the question us to whether the same discloses commission of an olfence and. is required n form such an opinion in this respect.
lyhen he does so and decides to issue process, he shall be said to have taken cognbance- At the stage of taking cognizance, the only consideration before the Court renains to consider judiciously whether the material on which the prosecation proposes to prosecute the accused brings out a prim4 facie case or not. " 8. lo Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal and another4, it is held as follows: "Nevertheless, it is well settled that before a Magistrate can be suid to have taken cognizance of an oflence, it is imperative that he must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the ullegutions made in the complaint or in the police report or the information receivedfrom a source other than a police report, as rhe :ase may be, and the material . /iled therewith. It needs little zmphasis that it is only when the Magistrate applies his mind and is .
satisJied that the allegations, provcd, d would constitute an ofence and decides to initiate proceedings against the alleged olfender, that ,'t can be positively stated that he has taken utgnizance of the offence. Cognizance is in regard to the ollence und nit the ,ffinder. " 9. 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 hial 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 ' lzoot; tz scc tsz it should be an order reflecting application of mind by the Presiding Officer while taking cogrizance and issuing process. 10. For the foregoing reasons and in view of 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 docket order dated 3L. 12.
2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Thungathurthy in C. C. No. l064 of 2020 is liable to be quashed and accordingty quashed. However, this order will not preclude the learned Magistrate from taking cognizance and passing orders afresh in accordance with law, by giving reasons. I l. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- P. C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY/' \ SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Thunagathurthy. 2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Thungathurthy. 3. The Station House Officer, Maddirala Police Station, Suryapet District. 4. One CC to ItIr. Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, Advocate [OPUCI qyp Two CCs to Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana, at z\ pL Hyderabad [OUTI u rwo cD coPies Y / f HIGH COURT DATED: 021O3t2026 E '2 o ORDER U 0 6 l,lli ? t26 CRLP. No. 2953 of 2026 i. - DISPOSING OIF THE CRIMINAL PETITION & e
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.