Korra Radhakrishna Yadav 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 2026-04-23. Korra Radhakrishna Yadav v. The State of Telangana,. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
[3303 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6264 OF 2026 Between: '1 , Kona Radhakrishna Yadav, (Wrongly typed as Korra Radhakrishna in FIR and CC) S/o K. Yadaiah, Aged 44 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o H. No. 5-63/1 , Jafferguda Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, R. R. District. 2. Varda Narsimha, S/o Sataiah, Aged 48 years, Occ. Agriculture, Fl/o H. No. 5-43, Jafferguda Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, R. R. District. 3. Korra Kumar Yadav, (wrongly typed as Korra Kumar in FIR and CC) S/o K. Yadaiah, Aged 42 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o H. No. 5-63/1, Jafferguda Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, R. R. District ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 3 AND 1. The State of Telangana,, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court building at Hyderabad Through PS Abdullapunnet, Hyderabad. 2. Md. Jahangheer, S/o Late Md.
Jafer, Aged about 53 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o Plot No. 223, Devendar Nagar Colony, Bachupally, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State-500090. Mobile No. 9346993589. ... RESPONDENT/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. 1121 OF 2O2O on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Xlv Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Hayathnagar against the petitioner/Accused-1 to 3 in the interest of justice l. A. NO: 1OF 2026 Petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further Proceedings CC. No.
112l OF 2020 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-XlV Addl Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy Diskict at Hayathnagar including personal appearance of the petitioner/Accused-'1 to 3, during the pendency of the present Quash Petition, Pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C KUMAR , Advocate for the Petitioner and the Mr V. Jithender Rao Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No'1 . and none appear for the Respondent No2. The Court made the following: ORDER gtlEElr7 =rr, r IN THE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE oFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINA L PETITION No. 6264 of 2026 Date:23. 04. 2026 Between: Korra Radhakrishna Yadav and two others ... Petitioners AND State of Telangana and another ... Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition is hled by the petitioners/accused Nos.
I to 3, seeking to quash the proceedings in C. C. No'll2l of 2020, on the file of the leamed Principal Junior Civil judge-cum- XIV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Hayathnagar 2. Heard Mr. C. Kumar, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Iearned Additional Pubtic Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. l 3. With the consent of both the learned counsel, the criminal petition B fisposed of at the admission stage on the ground that even according to the leamed counsel for the petitioners, the matter 'f belole the leamed rial Court has not ripened for the trial yet. In view of the same, notice in respect of respondent No. 2 is dispensed with 4. Learned 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 rnechanically and passed cryptic docket order.
Therefore, the docket order passed by the leamed Magistrate is liable 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 matenal available on record, it reveals that the leamed Magistrate has taken cognizance, without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons against the accused and not against the offences, through docket order. 7. lt is very much relevant to mention that ir Sunil Bharati I Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation 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. ln GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v.
India Infoline Limirct, the Hon'ble Apex Court found fault with the order of the Magistrate in issuing surrmons when the Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction about the prima facie case against the accused. ln Chief Enforcemnet Olftcer v. Videocon International Limitei, 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 Coutt in Sunil Bharati Mittal's case (Supra), further held as follows: (2ots) ' + scc 6og ' 1zon1 e scc 505 * * (zoog) z scc agz ' "Sine Quu Non for tuking c<tgnizanca of rhe olfence is the applrcation of mincl by the Mdgistrate und his satislttction that the altigations, if proved, would constitute on oflcncc.
It is, therefrtre, imperative thqt on d compluinl or on a police report, the Mugistrate is bound to consider the qucstion as to whether tha same discktscs c,ommission of an offence and is required to lttrm such an opinion in this respect. illrcn he doe,s so and decidcs to issue proces-s, he sholl be said to hava taken cognizottcc Al lhc stqge of tahng cognizuncc, the only consideratrcn before rha Court remains to consid{ judi(. iously wheier rhe mutcial r. tn which the proseculion prop()scs to prosccurc the accusetl brings oul a prima facie case or nol. " 8. ln Fakhruddin Ahmad v.
State of Uttaranchal and anothera, it is held as follows: "Nevertheless, il is u,ell :iettled that hefore u Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an oJlence, it r imperative thar he must huve taken notice of the accusqtit)ns and applietl his mind to the allegalions made in thc utmplaint or m the police report or the information receit'ed front u source other thun a pohce report, as lhe case may be, und tha matcrial filed tht:rewith. It needs little emphasis that it is only whan tha Magisrrate upplics his mind and is satisfed thdt the ullegations, if proved, y,ould constitute an ollence and decides to initiate proceadings againsr the alleged offentlei, that it can be positively slated that he has tuken cognizance of the offencc. Cognizancc is itt rcgord t<t the ofleni and no't the olfender. " 9.
In view of the observations and directions of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to supra, the act of lssulng 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. . 1, '12ooty tz scc tsz w 10. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the principles laid judgmetls down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cited supra, I I i and without going into the other grounds, this Court is of the I i considered view that the cognizance order is li. able to be quashed l l 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 I l. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.
t a Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. P. C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGlSTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Junior civil Judge-cum-xlv Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Hayathnagar 2. The Station House Officer Police Station Abdultahpurmet, Rachakonda 3. The Court of XXIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Rachakonda at Hayat Nagar. 4. One CC to SRl. C KUMAR Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUTI 6. Two CD Copies s AG,TKS HIGH COURT DATED: 2310412026 '. 't-. --\ I-L. q" \ ':. '. \ '1 ':) . t {+ (\- ):. s s' \ O \ . \ vr' 'G:', " '-]l '^',, * 9l. j ORDER - _.. -.. <-;"-' CRLP. No. 6264 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRLP t
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.