Shaik Badar Saheb 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 2026-03-18. Shaik Badar Saheb v. The State of Telangana,. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
\ [ 3303 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITIO N NO:3978 OF 2026 Between: 1. Shaik Badar Saheb, S/o Shaik Kareem Saheb Age: 35 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H. No. 6-133, Jayanthi Village, Veerlapadu Mandal, NTR District, Andhra pradesh State. 2. Shaik Kareem Saheb Kareem Shib, S/o. Kashim, age: 6zl Years, Occ: @ Cooliee, R/o H. No6-133, Jayanthi Village, Veerlapadu Mandal, NTR District' Andhra pradesh State. 3. Shaik Hamim Bee, Wo Shaik Kareem Saheb, age: 58, Occ: Housewife, R/o H. No6-133, Jayanthi Village, Veerlapadu mandal, NTR District, Andhra pradesh State. 4. Shaik Jaan Bee, w/o Shaik Subhani, age: 34 years, Occ: Housewife, Rl/o H. No. 1-40, Yerupalem Village and Mandal, Khammam District, Telangana ... PETITIONER ACCUSED 1 to 4 ANO. 1 .
The State of Telangana, through Sanathanagar Police Station, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. RESPONDENT 2. Smt. Shaik Nasimunnissa Begum, w/o Shaik Badar Saheb' age. 29 years, occ: Housewife, R/o H. No. 84-1903/1/2, Premnagar, Erragadda, Telanagana. ... DE-FACTO 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 call for the records and quash the proc€edings in cc. No. 7520 ot 2022 on the court of Hon,ble I Additional iunior Civil Judge-cum-Xll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally' l. A. NO: 'l Ol= 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorarrdum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC. No.
7520 of 2022 on The Court of Hon'ble I Additional Jrrnior Civil Judge-cum-Xll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Medchal-Mal<ajgiri Dist. at Kukatpally, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petil. ion coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal l)etition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri CH Venkat Raman, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and None appeared for Respondent no. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMIN PETITION No. 3 of 2O26 Date: 18. 03. 2026 Between: Shaik Badar Saheb and three others .. Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, Through Sanathnagar Police Station, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, rep.
by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. l to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 7520 of 2022 on the flrle of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Xll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally 2. Heard Mr. Ch. Venkat Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Pubtic Prosecutor for respondent No. l 3. lyith the consent of both the rearned counser, the criminal petition is disposed of at the admission stage on the ground that even accordi,g to the leamed counsel for the petitioners, the matter before the leanred Trial Court has not yet ripened for the trial. [n view of the same, notice in respect of respondent No. 2ldefacto comprainant is dispensed with. 4.
Upon perusar of the record, it reveals that the learned Magistrate, without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons, has taken cognizance against the petitioners on 05. 1 l . 2022 and issued summons mechanically and passed cryptic docket order by using rubber stamp. Therefore, the docket order dated 05. 1 I . 2022 passed by the learned Magistrate is riabre to be quashed. 5. Learned Additional public prosecutor has not opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6- Haring considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties ancl after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the leamed Magistrate has taken cognizance, without recording satisfactiorr and without assigning any reasons against the accused and not against the offences, through docket order dated 05. 1 l . 2022. I 7. [t is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Miltal v.
Central Bureau of Investigationt 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 Infotine Limitei, 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 facie case against the accused. [n Chief Enforcemnet Officer v. Videocon International Limiled, 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 Court in Sunil Bharati Mittol's case (Supro), further held as follows: "Sine taking cognizance of the offerrce is the application of Qua Non for mind by the Magistate and his satisfaction that the allegations, dproved, I 4 scc 609 1zors1 tou '{zor:;4599 31zooe1 zscc492 would constitute on offence. It is, therefore, imperative that on a contplaint or on o police report, the Magistrare is bound to consider the question a. s to whether the same discloses commission o/an ofence and is required to form such an opinion in this respect. lyhin he-1oes so and dec;des to i. ssue process, he shall be said ro have taken cognizance. Al the staS'e of taking cognizance, the only consideration before the court remains to consider judiciously whether the material on which the pro:tecution proposes to prosecute the accused brings our a prima facie case or not. " 8 In ,Fakhruddin Ahmad v. state of (Ittaronchal and onothera, it is held ;rs follows: "Neverthele. s.
s, rr rs weil settred that before a Magislrare can be s. ail to have taken cognizance of an offence, it is imperative rhat he must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his ntincr to the allegations made in the complaint or in tii police report or the infovnlqlio, received from a source other than i potice ,iport, as the cas? ,nav be, and rhe marerial filed therewith. It needs lirile emphasis that it is only when the Magistrate appries his mind and is satisfied rhat the allegations, if proved, would constitute an ofrence and dicides ro init,tate proceedings against the alleged offender, thar ir can be positively statzd that he has taken cognizance of the offence. cognizince is in regard to the offence and not the offender. " 9.
[n view of the observations and directions of the Hon'ble Supreme clourt 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 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 presiding the officer while taking cognizance and issuing process. o (zooe) 17 sc(: 157 10. For the foregoing reasons and in view of 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 docket order dated 05. 1 I . 2022 passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Xtl Additioniil Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally. , in C. C. No. 7520 of 2022 is 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 of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd,. C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /,TRUE COPY/ G SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Xll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally. 2. The Station House Officer- Sanathanagar Police Station, Medchal-Malkaigiri District. 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 4. One CC to Sri. Ch Venkat Raman, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies prBA w , I HIGH GOURT DATED: 1810312026 ii iu' z ORDER. 3 25ilAHzozE ,b CRLP. No. 3978 of 2026 D_lic r, - DISPOSING OF THE CRL. PETITION KS; a,s . falze
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.