Anugu Ramakrishna Reddy, v. The State of Telangana,

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO

Judgment date: 2026-04-28

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-04-28. Anugu Ramakrishna Reddy, v. The State of Telangana,. Read the judgment and case details on...

Judgment text

[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUS TICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6490 OF 2026 Between: 1. Anugu Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o Kondal Reddy, Age. 54 years, Occupation. Civil Contractor, GHMC, R/o Hyderabad, Ce[ Nir. 9849390819. 2. Dhadi Datham Reddy, S/o Sura Reddy, Age. 55 years, Occupation. Civit Conkactor, GHMC, R/o H. No. l-2-104, Slhasra Streets, Mansoorabad, Hyderabad, Cell No. 9441927942. ... Petitioners No. 1 &2/Accused Nos. 1 &2 AND 1. The State of Telangana, through its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. 2. Gutha Prabhakar Reddy, S/o- Pitchi Reddy, age'45 years, R/o' H'No 6-3-352 vanasthalipuram, Hayathnagar Mandal, RR Dist. ... Respond6nt No.

2/De-facto Complainant PetitionunderSection52SofBNSSprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin theMemorandumofGroundsofcriminalPeiition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedto quashtheCognizanceOrderdatedl3-1}-2}25inC'CNo'2639of2025'presently pendingonthefileoftheSpecialJudicialMagistrateofFirstClass(Excise)'Ranga - cum - V of First Class cum - V Additional Judicial Magistrate Reddy District out Reddy District at L. B. Nagar, arising of Judge, Ranga Junior civir Additionar CrimeNo. 66sof2023ofSaroornagarPoliceStation,insofarasPetitionersNo. l 1 and 2 ' and 2 / Accused Nos' l. A. NO: 20F 2026 Petition under Section. 52g- of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petiiio; G Higf, Corrt ,"V O" pfJ. l"a to stay all further proceedings. in. C C- 2639 of ZfiZS, pr*entfy penOlnj Io on in" nfe of Judiciat Magistrate of First Ctasr(e*ir"f Jlg . 9p9"irl , Ranga Reddy District -cum _ V Additional Judiciar Magistrate of First crass -'*, - v aooiionat . lunior cirii.

lrogu, Ranga Reddy District at L,B. Nagar, arising-oui of crime No. 66g of 2023 of Saroornagar Police Station. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petiion.. and ,pon nErriri-dihi ,rguments of sri purimamidi Rohith Reddy, Advocate for the petition", *oir,"'lt,,r. Jithender Rao Veeramara, Prosecutor on uenar otin" i". p". d"^t No l efllt5H";::lic and of sri_Advocate The Court made the following: ORDER / / IN TEE HIGH COURT FORTIM STATE OFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6490 of 2026 Datez 28. 04. 2026 Between: Anugu Ramakrishna Reddy and another ... Petitioners AND State ofTelangana and another ... Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition is hled by the petitioners/accused Nos. l and 2, seeking to quash the proceedings in C. C. No.

2639 of 2025, on the file of the leamed Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Ranga Reddy District-cum-V Additional Judicial Magistrate bf First Class-cum-V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L. B. Nagar. 2. Heard Mr. Pulimamidi Rohith Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No' 1 ' 3. Wilh the consent of both the learned counsel, the criminal petition is disposed oi at the admission stage on the ground that even according to the leamed counsel for the petitioners, the matter before the leamed Trial Court has not ripened for the trial yet. In view of the same, notice in respect of respondent No. 2 is dispensed with. 4.

Leamed counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Magistrate, without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons, has taken cognizance against the petitioners and issued summons mechanically and passed cryptic docket order Therefore, the docket order passed by the learned Magistrate is Iiable to be quashed. 5. Leamed 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 cognizance, without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons against the accused and not against the offences, through the docket order. 7. It is very much relevant to mention thatin Sunil Bharati Dlittul v.

Cenfial Burequ of fnvestigotiozr the Hon,ble Supreme Court held that the order of issuing process to accused to face criminal hial 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 Stuck Opdon Trust v. fndia Infotine Limiteg,the Hon,ble Apex Court tbund fault with the order of the Magistrate in issuing surlmons when the Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction about the prima facie case against the accused. In Chief Enforcemnet Officer v. Wdeocon fnturnutionul Limitef, the. Hon,ble Supreme Court while discussing ,cognizance, the expression 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 'lzorsy + scc 609 eotr) + scc 50s 1zoor1 z sce 6z in Sttnil Court Supreme The Hon'ble of an oflence' commission held as follows: (Supra) case Mittal's 'further Bharati '. SineeuaN? ,{1,,! y::^':*";:';:{;::,:#,i::,',;! kf:Ai',:::::? *' nf mind bv the Magistrate ',)"r'. ",','i1:;;;rrfrre, th on -irover)' impera. tive on woutd constitute ""'. ')i'*'; uirrd to consider ;r;;;;,)Lrc x 'a or on a conplaint Pol,ice,reP? rn of an commrsston ,o^" discloses as to whether the qiesion this resp. ect. Wen -|t. *rrli" * lirr,-- in olleice and i' :! 'Y,'d : ! ::)i"*ir, [r'rnat ae said to hove ratcen to tssue. proces''-'t1iil",il i" dort to and decides Jt,, consideration t"'y:o: o1 cognizance' ! h" ? '!! costlizunce. At rhe s^ge 'oing ';""f *:,;';;;;;:,;;:::^::'ij'! j! ',,ffii;ll,:i;:'f":X,f ;';! ' on which lhe Prosecufion Prol case or not' out a Prima facie and State Ahmad v. of Uttaranchal 8.

ln Fakhruddin held as anothera, it is follows: Magistrate can "Nevertheless, it is well settled that before a it be said to have taken cognizance of an offence, is imperdtive thdt he must have taken notici of the acctsatiow and applied his mtnd to the allegatiots made in the complaint ttr in the police report or the informition received a source other than a police report, as the from case may be, and the maleial therewith. It needs little filed is emphasis that it is only when lhe Magistrate applies his mind and sdfisrted thdt the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence and decides to initiate proceedings against the alleged ofender, that it can be positively stated that he has taken cognizance . of lhe 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 dtectngsunmons to a persOn to face criminal trial cannot be on the basis of cryptic orders and a 12oos; rz scc rsz it should be an order reflecting application of mind by the Presiding Officer while taking cogrrizance and issuing process. 10. For the foregoing reasons and rn vlew of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgmen ts crted,supra, and without going into the other grounds, this Court is of the considered view ttrat the cognizance order is Iiable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. However, this order will not preclude the leamed 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/- K.

BHAVANI SWAMY I ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII G SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to SRt. pULtMAMIDt ROHTTH REDDyAdvocate [OpUC] 2' Two ccs to pUBLrc pRosECUTOR High court for the state of rerangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 3. Two CD Copies KA qe1 fts CC -ro D HiGH COURT 28t0412026 DATED: . j,l: . ,. '1 ',. t s a) s- \ ORDER \ ot 2026 CRLP. No. 6490 PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEALIDISMISSING'DISPOSING'CLOSING ( Q 9 c-. 4 5c) a o\ @\

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.