Bukya Shymala 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 2026-04-20. Bukya Shymala 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 TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5982OF 2026 Between: 1. Bukya Shymala, Wo. Srinivas, aged about 62 years, Occ. House wife, R/o. H. No. 15-36/2, Thirlapuram Village, Buddharam post, Garla Mandal, Mahabubabad District . ) Bukya Srinivas, S/o. Bhajya, aged about 6i years, Occ. Retd. Railway Employee, R/o. H. No. 15-36/2, Thirlapuram Village, Buddharam post, Garli Mandal, Mahabubabad District 3 Bukya Srikanth, S/o. Srinivas, aged about 33 years, Occ. Software Employee, R/o. H-No. 15-3612, Thirlapuram Village, Buddharam post, OaAa UanOat, Mahabubabad District. 4 Bandaru Sudhakar Rao, S/o. Ramarao, aged about 57 years, Occ. Civil Contractor, R/o. H. No. 5-2-66/1, Mudiraj Bazar, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 to S AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep.
by its public prosecutor High Court Buildings ... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT 2 Maloth Bhavana, Wo. Karthik, aged about 26 years, Occ. House Wife, R/o. F_ 52, KTPS 'A' Colony, Palvoncha Town and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal pe'ition, the High court may be pleased to call for the records in c. c. No. 1213 of 2o2s on the file of the court of the llt Additional First class Magistrate at Kothagudem. Bhadradri Kothagudem District against the petitioners/Accused 2 to 5 herein and quash the same. w l. A. NO: 1 OF 2026 Petitio, under section 52g of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be preased to grant stay of all further proceedlngs incruding appearance of the petitioners/accused No 2 to 5 in c. c No.
1213 0f 2025 0n the fire of the court of the ilr Additionat First class Magistrate at Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, pending disposar of the above criminal petition ,n this Hon,ble Court This Petitron coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of Ms. p. Bharati representing sri Krishna Kishore Kowuri, Advocate for the petitioners, sri Jithender Rao Veeranralla, Additronar pubric prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No. 1, and Non Appeared for Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: OROER IN THE TIIGH COURT FOR TTIE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRJMINAL PETITION No. 5982 of2026 Date:20. 04. 2026 Between: Bukya Shyamala and 3 others ... Petitioners/accused Nos. 2 to 5 AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court ofTelangana, Hyderabad and another ...
respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 to 5, seeking to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. l2l3 of 2025 on the file of the leamed III Additional First Class Magistrate at Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, for the oflences punishable under Section 85 ofthe Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (for short, 'BNS') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, 'DP Act'). 2. Heard Ms. P. Bharati, leamed counsel representing Mr Krishna Kishore Kovvuri, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor. rpgearing for respondent No. 1. 3. With the consent of both the leamed counsel, the criminal petition is disposed ol at the admission stage on the ground that even according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the matter before the leamed Trial Court has not riped for the trial yet and is at the stage of appearance of parties.
In view of the same, notice in respect of respondent No. 2ldefacto complainant is dispensed with. 4. During the course of hearing, leamed counsel for the petitioners submittcd that the leamed Magistrate without recording satislaction and without assigning any reasons has taken cognizance and issued summons to the petitioners and the same is contrary to the principle laid down in Sunil Bharati Mittal v. Central Bureau of lnvestigationt . 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 without applying his mind and without assigning any reasons, ' izo r :; . r s<'c ool J especially taken cognizance against the accused and not against the offences through cognizance order passed in C. C. No. 12 1 3 of 2025 . '7 .
It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittal 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 lacie case against the accused. In Chief Enforcemnet Olficer v. Videocon Internstional LimituC, 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 commission of an offence. The Hon'ble Supreme --.
_=-+E-- (zo ' n) + scc s0v r lzooa; z scc aez Court in Sunil Bharati Mittal's case (Supra),, further held as follows "Sine Non Qua for tuking cognizonce of the ollence is the application of nind by thc Magrstrate und his sqtisfactton tltdt the allegutions, if proved, would constitute an ollcnce [t ig thcrefore, impcrqtive that on o c<. tmplaint or on a police report, lhe Magistetc is bound to consider the que ion ar^ to whelher the sanrc discloscs comnission of an oflence ttnd is requircd to fornt such un <tpinion in this respect. When he does so and decidcs to issue process, he shall be said to have taken cognizance At thc skrye of taking cL,gnizunce, the only consideratbn before the Court remoins to consider judiciously whether the mateial on u,hich the prosecution proposcs lo pros(ulc the accused brings out e prima llcie Lusc or not. " 8. ln Fakhruddin Ahmad v.
State of [lftaranchal and another4 , it is held as follows: "Ncverthcless, it is v,ell sculed that before a Mttgistrate cun be suid to have taken cognizqncc of an offcnce, it is imperqtive thal he must huva tokcn otice of the uccusation. s and applied his mind to the allegotion; madc in the conplaint or irt tha police report or the inlormaion rcceived lrom a source olher thon a police report, as the case md'' be, und thc maternl . filed thcret,ith. lt needs little emphasis thot tt is onlv yrhen the Magistratc opplies his mind and is sati. sficd that tlrc allegations, if prowd, u,oukl constitute an o/lencc and dactdcs to initiutc proceedings egainst thc alleged o. fender, that it can ba posttivelv stated that he has nken cognizance o1[ the offence. Cognizancc ts tn regtrd to thc offence qnd not rhc '' offencler 9.
In view of the observations and directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the j udgments 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 o 1zoo8; r scc tsl 'a be an order reflecting application of mind by the Presiding Officer I i 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 cognizance order passed in C. C. No. 1213 of 2025 pending on the file of learned III Additionat First Class Magistrate at Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, rs liable to be quashed and accordingly 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 ol Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand SD/. P. C. SULEKHA DEVI closed. ASSISTANT REGiSTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The lll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kothagudem 2. The Station House Officer, Palvoncha Town police Station, Badradri Kothagudem, 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court fo{ the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 4. One CC to Sri Krishna Kishore Kowuri Advocate [OpUC] M 5. Two CD Copies . ;:M . Effi'. HIGH COURT DATED: 2O104t2026 ORDER CRLP. No. 5982 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION t\ 1/
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.