Shameem Sultana v. 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 2026-04-17. Shameem Sultana v. State of Telangana,. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 3s03 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5784 OF 2026 Between: 1. Shameem Sultana, W/o Syed Fareed Uddin, Aged 70 years, Occ: Housewife, No 20-4-973115/A, Khiwath, Murgi Chowk, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500002. 2. Syed Fareed Uddin, S/o Late Syed tr4oinuddin @ Syed Khaja Moinuddin, Aged 81 years, Occ. Retd Employee, No 2O-4-973l15/A, Khiwath, Murgi Chowk, Hyderabad, Telangana 500002. ... Petitioners/Accused 2 & 3 AND 1. State of Telangana, Rep. , by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. ... Respondent No. 1 2. Smt Ruksana Begum, W/o Syed Muneer Uddin, Aged 43 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o H. No. 8-1-332t3tN43,2"o Floor, Lane No. 4, Arvind Nagar Colony, Tolochowki, Hyderabad, Telangana. ... Respondent No.
2/Defacto-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 quash the Charge Sheet against the Petitioners / Accused No. 2 & 3 in CC. No. 9599 of 2O2O on the file of Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. l. A. NO: 1OF 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in the Charge Sheet against the Petitioners / Accused No. 2 & 3 in C. C. No. 9599 of 2020 on the file of Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. SK Ashraf, Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.
'l and None Appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH (]OURT FORTHE STATE O FTELANGANA AT I{YDER{BAD I'HE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRINIINAI, PETITI ON No. 5784 of2026 Date: 17. 04. 2026 Between Shameem Sultana and another .. Petitioners AND S tate of 1 elangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor. High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ORDER This Crirninal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 3, seeking to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 9599 of 2020 on the file of the learned XIlt Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. 2 Heard Mr. SK Ashraf, learned counsel for the petitioners and Nlr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.
l 3 With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned public Additional prosecutor, the criminal petition is disposed of at the stage of admission on the ground that the leamed Magistrate, on 04. 09. 2020, took cognizance against the petitioner and other accused by using rubber stamp' It is trite law that the learned trial Court ought to have taken cognizance against the olfences and not against the accused by recording satisfaction and by giving reasons. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the leamed Magistrate without recording satisfaction and without assigning any petitioners issued summons to the reasons has taken cognizance and the principte laid down in Sunil Bharati and the same is contrary to Mittal v. Cenlral Bureau of Investigationt ' are not opposed by the learned 5. The above said submissions Additional Public Prosecutor. the rival submissions made by the 6.
Having considered respective parties and after perusal of the material available on has taken cognizance' record it reveals that the leamed Magistrate assigning any reasons' without applying his mind and without not against the especially taken cognizance against the accused and in C'C'No'9599 of 2020' offences through cognizance order, passed (20 ' t5) 4 scc 609 I . 3 7 lt is I'er1, ntuch relevant to mention tiat in Sunil Bharati tllittul supra the ilon'ble Supreme Courl held that the order of issuing process to accused to face criminal trial is a scrious issue. Such summoning cannot be done on mere asking and the Court has to record reasons lbr summoning a person. ln GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust t'. India Infotine Limirctf , the Hon'bte Apex CoLrrt lbund faulr rvith the order of the Magistrate in issuing srrmurons when the Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction about thc prima lacie case against the accused. In Chief EnJbrcem net OfJiccr v.
Videocon International Limited3 , the Hon'ble Suprerne Court white discussing the expression 'cosnizancc' held that in criminal law 'cognizance, means becomins au. are of'and the word used with respect to Court or a Judge initiating proceedings in respect ol an offence. Taking cosnizance rvould involve application of mind by the Magistrate to the suspected commission of an offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bhsrati Mittal's case (Supra), further hetd as [ollou,s: ''Sittt Oucr Non lrtr ttking cognizance of the o[fcncc is the application Lt/. tyrtd hr tlte ,\. ltt. gistrate and his sotidaction that the allegttions, if provccl, toulc/ cttrt. \tituta an olJince. It is, there-t'orc, imperative that on (l0 t _r) 4 sc( -i05 (:00r) I scc ,191 x I a complaint or on a police report, the Magistrate is bound to consitler lhe question as to wlrcther the same discloses commission of an ofence and is required to fonn such an opinion in this respea.
fuhen he does so and decides to issue proces. s, he shall be said to have taken cognizance. At lhe stage of taking cognizance, the only consideration before the Court remains to consicler judici(tu. slv whether the material on which the pro. \ecution proposcs to prosecute lhe occusetl bringt oul d prima facie case or not. " 8. In Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal and anothe/, it is held as follows: "Nevertheless, it is well settled that before a Mapistrate cen be said to huye taken cognizancc of an o/lbnce, it is implrorite that he must haye tdken notice of the uccusations and applied his nind to the allegations made in the complaint or in the police report or the information received froru a source other than a police reporl, as the case may be, ancl the mcterial f. led therewith.
It nee(ls little emphasis lhat il is only whe the Magistrdte applies his mintl antl is satisfed lhqt the allegations, iJ proved, v,ould consti ne an offence and decides to initiate proceedings ogainst the ollegetl ollentl*. that it can be positively stated thqt hc has taken cognizance of the offence. Cognizance is irt regarcl to the offence und uot tlrc " ofJender. 9. In view of the observations and directions of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the judgments refered to supra, the act of issuing process of summoning the accused to face criminal triat 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 (zoos) rz ' scc *s; 1' . J 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 goine into the other grounds, this Courl is of the considcrcd vierv that cognizance order, passed in C. C. No. 9599 of 2020 pending on the file of the leamed XIII Addirional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, is Liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. However, this order will not preclude the learned Magistrate lrom taking cognizance and passing orders afresh in accordance larv, by giving reasons ',vith I l. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. Pcnding miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed Sd/- K. BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// /7 7' \_- \ \ SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The XIll Additional Chief lVletropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Offrcer, Women Police Station, CCS, DD, Hyderabad District. 3. One CC to Mr. SK Ashraf, Advocate tOpUCI 4.
Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies KAMA/H &' : HIGH COURT JSR, J DATED: 1710412026 l tt 1EL ? , .. i ORDER ) s Xi' IJJ CRLP. No. 5784 of 2026 a\ ! t '-l ,:U 11'! \*. {' \. 1 . '. "t : ) :r,-rr. l DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION L-a
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.