Mahesh Mavurapu 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. Mahesh Mavurapu 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 MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO:38 87 0F 2026 Between: 1. Mahe. sh Mavurapu, s/o. Late Mavurapu Narasimha Murthy, Age: 35 years, Occ: Unemployed R/o. H No. 2-7-503, Excise Colony, grnriion"aa, W;;;;i District, Telangana - 506001 2 Smt. Kamaladevi Mavurapu. , w{9. Mavurapu Narasimha Murthy, ! at9 Age: 65 years, Occ: Household R/o. H. No. 2_7_S03, Excise Colony, H"r,n. "iionOr, Warangal District, Telangana - 506001 3 Dasaroju, Wo. Dasaroju Rama Yq9hry! Mohan, Age: 36 years, Occ: House R/o, Ftat No. 20e, Sri. S3!. tl"l9qryi ! old, nptI, eoc[<-c, br,"nnri. Joy Enclave,_ Peerzadiguda, Medchal-Malkajgiri, Telangana _ 500039 4 Malathi Mavurapu, d/o. Late Mavurapu- Narasim[a Murthy, Age. 35 years, Occ. Private Teacher, R/o. Flat No. 209, Sri 'epi.
, Sai n-n"nj"_"Vi -' Peerzadiguda, BS Maqtam Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana _ S6OO39 . Petitioners/Accused AND 'l' The state of rerangana, pubric Rep. by prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana, at Hyderabad. Thrbugh p. S. Narsingi,'CyOiraOaJ. 2. smt. BhavaniMavurapu @ Bhairoju Bhavani, ,;T,:H:fl:ilXff:! ::ffi:: 25 years, Occ. Household, 'Tirp-t", R/o. -H. No. 1_SOi4, Near Ramalay", G^unde. pudi Village, Maripeda Mandal, tr,tanOu'baOaO Oi. tr,. t'i. f". g";I 506315 ... Defacto ComplainanURespondent Petition under section 529 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounrrs of criminar i,etifioi, tre Hign court may oe pr"a"J to call for the records in c. c. No. 724 ot 20zs on the file of-the court of nonror" Jr"i", civil Judge, Thorrur, Mahbubabad District, arising out of FrR No. 210;irors;;t"d regrstered by the Station House bfficer, Maripeda potice 1? 9?? 0?
5 Sration, Mahbubabad District, for the aileged offences under section al or ne eha;iiva Nyaya sanhita , 2023 and sectionJ 3 and 4 of the Dowry prohibition e"t, r s6i ,;;o to quash the charge sheet and ail further proceedings therein as oeinfan auuse ot process of law and devoid of any legal basis. l. A. NO: { OF 2026 petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying thai in the circumstances stated in the Memorandurn of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C. C. N0. 724 of 2025 on the file of the Court of Hon'ble Junior Civil Judgie, Thorrur, Mahbubabad District, arising out of FIR No. 210 of 2025 dated 19. 09. 2025 registered by the Station House Officer, Maripeda Police Station, Mahbubabad District, for the alleged offences under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending disposal of the accompanying Criminal Petition.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the llemorandum of Grounds of Crirninal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. Gayathri, Advocate for ther Petitioners and the Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELAI\IGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3887 of 2026 Datez 17. 03. 2026 Between: Mahesh Mavurapu and three others ... petitioners/accused Nos. l to 4 AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad, Through P. S. , Narsingi, Cyberabad and another . respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. l to 4, seeking to quash the proceedings in C. C. No.
724 of 2025 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Thorrur, Mahabubabad District, for the offences punishabte under Sections 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry t. . Y: '. Prohibition r,. i. ..! ,:. '. :' Act, 1961. t t 2. With the consent of the leamed counsel for the petitioners and the [earned Additional Public Prosecutor, the criminal petition is disposed of at the stage of admission on the ground that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on 29. 12. 2025 without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons. In view of the same, notice in respect of respondent No. 2ldefacto complainant is disPensed with' 3. Heard Smt. Gayathri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for resPondent No' 1' 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter before rhe trial Court is at the stage of summons and posted to 26. 05. 2026.
The learned Magistrate without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons has taken cognizance on 29. 12. 2r)25 and the same is contrary to the principle laid down in Sunit Bharoti Mittst v. Central Bureou of Investigotiont. ' lzots;4 scc 609 ffi 5. The above said submissions are not opposed by the learned 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 on 29. 12. 2025, without applying his mind and without assigning any reasons, especially taken cognizance against the accused and not against the offences through cognizance order, passed in C. C. No. 724 of 2025. 7. [t is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittot 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 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 2 scc 5os lzot:;4 ,4 Enforcemnet Offtcer v. Wdeocon Internationat Limircd, the Hon'ble, Supreme Court while discussing the expression cognlzance 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 Flon'ble Supreme Court io Sunil Bhorati Mittal's case (Supra), funher held as fo[lows "iiine Qua Nonfor taking cognizance oJ'the ofence is lhe applicatiott oJ'mind by the Magistrate cmd hi.
s satisfaction that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offince. It is, therefore, imperative that on a complaint or on a police reporl, the Magistrate is bound to consider the question as to whether the same discloses comntission of un oJ. fence and ts required to form such an opinion in this respect. W'hen het does so and decides to issue process, he shall be saicl to have taken gognizance. At the stage of taking cognizance, the only consideration bcfore the Court remains lo consider judiciottsly whether the material on which the prosecution proposes lo prosecute the accused brings out a primafacie case or not. " 8. Irr Fokhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal and anothef , it is held as follows: "Nevertheless. it is well settled that before a Magistrate can .
be said to have taken cognizance of an offence, it is imperative that ,he must have taken notice of the accusattons and applied his mind to 3 (zoos) 2 tcc 492 4(zoot) li scc rs7 b* the allegqtions 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 material filed therewith. It needs little emphasts thal 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 staled that he has taken cognizance of the offence. Cognizance is in regard to the offence and not the offender. " 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 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. 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 the docket order, passed in C. C. No-724 of 2025 on the fite of the Junior Civil. Judge, Thomrr, Mahabubabad District, is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed.
However, this order will not preclude the learned Magistrate from taking and passing orders afresh in accordance with law, by cogrizance giving reasons' the criminal petition is disposed of' I l. Ar:cordingly, pe,nding miscellaneous applications, if ? nY, shall stand closed. SD'- A. SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY" G SECTION OFFICER To, l. TheJunrorCivilJudge,Thorrur,MahbubabadDistrict The station Hort" officer, Maripeda Police station, Mahbubabad District 2. 3. One CC to Smt. Gayathri, Advocate [OPUC] pUBLlb pRoSECUToR High court for the state of relangana, 4. Two ccs to at HYderabad [OUT] 5. Two CD CoPies Kam/l'SL ')P" U-- I HIGH COTIRT DATED i 1'710312026 '1' rlll t 5 ORDER t CRLP. No. 3887 of 2026 {. J 2 5 I,IAfl 2826 e * * FA. TCi}; DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION Jrs wf'/*
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.