Pendyala Shiva Prashanth, v. The State of Telangana,

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO

Judgment date: 2026-04-17

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-04-17. Pendyala Shiva Prashanth, 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 FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No: 5792 ol 2O26 Between: Pendyala Shiva Prashanth, S/o Pendyala Ravi, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o Flat No. 520, Berbera Block, Bhanu Township, Miyapur, Cyberabad, Telangana ... Petitioner/Accused AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, Through SHO, Police Station Kothagudem 1 Town, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. 2. Smt. Nakka Sindhura, Wo. Ravi, Aged. 34 Years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H. No. 9-1-140/1, Madhura Basthi, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothegudem District. ... Respondents/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 to Quash the proceedings in CC. No.

1377 of 2025 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kothagudem for the offence under Section 79, 296(b), 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha 2023, against the Petitioner/Accused. l. A. NO: 1OF 2026 Petition under Section 482 of Cr. P-C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandi. rm of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased be pleased to grant Stay of all further proceedings, including appearance of the petitioner, in CC. No 1377 of 2025 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kothagudem for the offence under Section 79, 296(b), 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha 2023, against the Petitioner/Accused, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition.

-7 This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing rre l\iremorandum of ^ Grounds of criminal Petition and upon irearing- 1e arguments of sri Sridhar Lonkala, Advocate for petitioner the and Sri Jiihr,r rler RaiVeeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nc. and none appeaieo for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the foltowing: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR TH E STA TE OF TELAN t GANA AT HYI) ERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMTNAL PETITTON No. 5792 of 2026 Date: l7. 04. 2026 Between: Pendyala Shiva prashanth .. petitioner/accused AND The State of Telangana and another ... respondents ORDER This Criminal petition is flted by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash rhe proceedings in C. C. No. 13 77 of 2025pending on the fi[e of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kothagudern, for the otIences punishable under Sections 79, 296(b) and 351(2) ofthe Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for shorr 'BNS'). 2. Heard Sri Sridhar I.

onkala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional public Prosecutor fbr respondent No. I . 3. With the consent of both the leamed counse[, the criminal petition is diiposed of at the admission stage on the ground that even according to the learned counsel for the petition}j, the matter before the leamed Trial Court has not riped f,or the tr nl yet and is at the stage of summons. [n view of the same, notic ) rn lespect of respondent No. 2ldefacto complainant is dispensed u'i.. 4. During the course of hearing, leamed corr rsel for the petitioner submitted that the leamed Magistrate w,itl r rrt recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasoni has taken -e cognizance on 30. 07. 2025 and issued summons t() I pe titioner' and the same is contrary to the principle laid d,r tn rn Sunil Bhtrati Mitta! v, Centrol Bureau of Investigationt. 5. The above said submissions are not opposed : , the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor. 6.

Having considered the rival subrnissions rde bv the respective parties and after perusal of the materia ,rvailable on record it reveals that the learned Magistrate has 1ak:' cognizance on i0. 07. 2025 without applying his rnind and withor-rt ssigning any reasons, especiaily taken cognizance against the ac: rsed and not ' (20 t5) 4 scc 609 against the offences through cognizance order passed C. C. No. l377 of 2025. 7. It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Mittal supra the Hon'ble Supreme Courl held that the issuing process to accused to face crirninal trial is a serious Such summoning cannot be done on mere asking and the to record reasons for summoning a person. In GHCL Employees Stock Option Trast v. India lt{oline Limitut, the Hon,ble Court found fault with the order of the Magistrate in summons when the Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction about the prima facie case against the accused. In Enforcemnet Oflicer v.

Videocon International Limitud, Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the expression ,cognizance, 'cognizance' held that in crirninal law becoming aware of and the word used with respect to Court Judge initiating proceedings in respect of an offence. cognizance would involve application of mind by the Magistrate to the suspected commission of an offence. The Hon'ble . '1zol:; + scc sos ' lzootlz scc 492' J Court in Sunil Bharati Miftal,s case (Supra). I . rrther held as follows: Sine Qrt,o . \'un. lor toking coguizancc of the o. flbnce is rh, 1oplicatitn ,,1 nin,l h. rht :llugi. strtrc ,u. l his satis/oction thot the ,l :gotions, iJ lrrtved. c:onstitltte qn olfbnce. It ii, theref<tre, :,i. a intpet ,trouhl t tlrut on ,t,totttTluin t,t. u4 Lt poliL. ,report, . fhe MugistrLtte i,s biun I , cortsider tht LluL,slu)n Lt_t lo rrhefher the same discloses c<tntin _\ ;an of. att of. feltce and i. s required to lfornt such an opitrion in thi. s rr : ,,:clt. ltrhen he do.

es so und decides to isste process, trc sholt be said t ) lruve laken t,r tgn i:Ltt. rL. c. At thc . stage o/taking (ognizo cc, thc onlr. , ) ,tid,,rttttL)n n(rcre /lh,( rtu1. 1 1. pro1r. t to r. otttider judicit,utl),) v,h iHr t Mt(rittl ,r? ,*hnl the" [)roseculion ? roposes lo prosecute tlre actt:ad hring. s oul ct primo. facie cq,\c or nol. ,' 8 ln Fakhruddin Ahmatl v. Stqte of Utt(, runchol ttnd ottotherl , it is held as follows: '' Neyt:rtheless, it is tr. ell settled thot be/itre a l. kt 1 \trot(. can hc :,ttJ ro lnyt' raken cognEunLe of an offenie. i, . ,. ,iii i, i,)ai )t*, t. lt ntu\l lkl'! tukcn notice of the accusttlions and applit. rt t i,. nrincl fo lh( olltqdtiun: uale_ in thc comploint or in the piiice rt1 :rt or lhc ntlot't ,tltou r<. ciwd frou a source other thon u policc ,r'7 ,rt u;; tha co:ie tlay he. antl the material ,! iled lherey,ith lt t L:cls little cntqhysiy that it is only v,hen rhe Magistrare applies his , ,,i ,*,rt i. , s:::i,r. \, d t,h. t rh.

e proria, y,oulti f constitute , , . ollegutions. ollr:,,r" {. t. nd da( t,.! -. s tL, initiate proceedittgs againsl the allegett o11 ,. tir. thut tt hL . \tated lhat ,cLll l)o\tttvcly he has laken .. , cognillti ol the ',n" ofii'ttct. (1)! ,tt:ouce is iu regard to thr ,,[[r,ni ,,, ,,r, ,'l/br t,r. 9. In view of the observations and directions ct r. he Hon,ble Supreme Courl in the judgments referred to sull i , the act of lssurng process ot summoning the accused to face crirr inal trial is a serious issue and such orders directing summons to a : : rson to fbce crirninal trial cannot be on the basis of cryptic orders r ,ld it should ' 1u oos. i tz scc I-sz f be an order reflecting apptication of mind by the presiding Officer while taking cognizance and issuing process. 10. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principles taid 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. 1377 of 2025 pcnding on the fire of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of F-irst Class at Kothagudem, is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. Horvever, this order wiil not precrude the learned Magistrate from taking cognizance and passing orders afresh in accordance with law, by giving reasons. 1t Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed o f.. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/. P.

PONNA KRISHNA A SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, Class, agudem I The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First ClaS ukatpally, CYberabad 2 The Vlll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First 3 The Station House Officer, Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad '1 Police Station, Bhadradri 4 The Station House Officer, koihagudem Town Kothagudem to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 5 Two dcs Hyderabad [OUT] 6. One CC to Sri Sridhar Lonkala, Advocate [OPUCI 7. Two CD Copies /RA 0,* ^Ert( (. '' c - T)D,+y HIGH COURT DATED: 1710412026 c . /t. /. , ^. , ,'t5' j\ ? q 1,, APq )t t,f, 7 L . ri: ORDER . 1. ' :: CRLP. No. 5792 of 2O26 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION t7 c. o \ 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.