Gowtham Kapoor 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. Gowtham Kapoor v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE J. SREENIVAS RAO Fliliifl AL PETITI NO:'17540 7I. t Between: GoMham Kapoor, S/o. Late. Ambika Prasad Kapoor, Age. 63 Business, R/o. F. No. 16, Sahodara Mansion, P. No. 5, Kirlampudi Vishakapatnam. D 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by the it's Public Prosecutor, High Hyderabad (Through SHO, Borabanda, Hyderabad) 2. B. R. Rao, S/o. Lite Srinivasa Rao, Age: 71 years, Occ: Business, H. No. 15, Sylvan Greens, J. J. Nagar, Yapral, Secunderabad (died to the best of knowledge and information to the petitioner/A. 4 subject to verification by the Respondent No. '1 ) ... Respondents/De-facto Complainant Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Peiition, the High court may be pleased to (uash the c. c. No. 480 of 2016 on the file of Xll Addl.
chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, as against the petitioner/A. 1 in the interest of justice' 2 ] Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be stay all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner/A 1 in C. C. No. 480 ot iOtO on the file of Xll hddl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, pending disposal of this Criminal Petition in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mrs. Radha Rani, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. The Court made the following: ORDER IN TTIE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGAIIA AT IIYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO NN Date:20. 04.
2026 Between: Gowtham KaPoor Petitioner AND The State c,f Telangana, and another Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No. 1 seekirg to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 480 of 2016 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ar Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 4lB, 420 and 422 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. I{eard \{rs. Devineni Radha Rani, leamed counsel for the petitioner, and \zlr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Proset;utor for respondent No. 1. 3. with their consent, the criminal petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. i {l 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate without recording pima satisfaction facie and without assigning any reasons has taken cognizance on 31. 12. 2016 and issued summons to the petitioner and the same is contrary to the principle laid down in Sunil Bharati Mittal v.
Central Bureau of Investigationl. 4. The above said submissions are not disputed by the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor. 5. 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 on 31. 12. 2016 without recording satisfaction, especially taken cognizance against the accused and not against the offences. 6. 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 1 1zors1 4 scc 609 Option T'rust v.
India Infoline Limited2, the Hon'ble Apex Court found fautt with the order of the Magistrate in issuing summons when the Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction about the prima facie case agairst the accused. In Chief Enforcemnet Officer v. Videocon Internati0nal Limited3, 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 cognizanct: would involve application of mind by the Magistrate to the suspected commission of an offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunit Bharati Mittal's case (Supra), fu*her held as follows: ,,sine Qua Non for taking cognizance of the offence is the application oJ' mind by the Magistrate and his satisfaction that the allegations, d proved, woula' constitute an offence.
It is, therefore, imperative lhat on u comptaint or on a police report, the Magistrate is bound to consider the qrrition as to whether the same discloses commission of an offence and is requhed to form such an opinion in this respect. when he does so and deiid<,s to issue process, he shatl be said to have taken cognizance. At the stage of taking cognizance, the only consideration before the court reiai,zi to consider whether the material on which the iudiciously prose<:utiott proposes to prosecute the accused brings out a prima facie case or nol. " 2 1zore1 4 scc sos 3 (zoog) 2scc 492 \ L , :.. 1i{ 4, 7 In Fakhruddin Ahmad Y.
State of Uttaranchal and anothera, it is held as follows: "Nevertheless, il rs well settled that before a Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offence, it is imperative that he must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made ii the complaint or in the police report or the inJo;rmation received a source other lhan a police report, as the from emphasis case mcty be, and the malerial therewith. It needs little filed that that it ii only when the Magistrote applies his mind and is safisrted to the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence ond decides initiate proceedings against the atleged offender, that il can be positively stated that he has taken cognizance of the offence. Cognizance is in regard to the offencg and not the ffinder. " 8.
In view of the observations and directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 diiecting summons to a person to face criminal trial cannot be on th'e basis of cryptic orders and it should be an order reflecting application of mind by the presiding officer while taking cognizance and issuing process. 9' For the foregoing reasons as weil as the principres raid 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 orderpassed in c. c. No. 4g0 of 20r6 pending on the fire of the XII Additional Chief Metropoliran Magistrate at Hyderabad, is ,. ,'", 4 . -.. *-- \.. 1zooa1 17 SCC 157 :.. _:. ' r:'r':{j' . ,/ t:4;;r/. **ig. liabletobequashedandaccordinglyquashed.
However,thisorder Y cognizance and Magistrate from taking will not preclude the learned proceed in accordance with law' is disposed of' criminal petition r0. Ac,:ordingly, the if any' shall stand closed' applications' Pending miscellaneous SD/- P. C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSTSTANT REGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Xll Addl. Chief Police Station, HYderabad 2. The Station l{ouse District' r. Mrs' Devineni Radha Rani' Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to at Telansana' iot'ine Siate of prUti" pror"Jjioi, High CoJtt 4. f*o LC, to \ ' HYderabad [CUT] CoPies 5. Two CD KAM/KA w \ t \ HIGH COURT DATED i 2010412026 I ,6iri' '. tii S () O APfi 2[]2fi 2 5 t yr f o.. ".. ORDER of 2025 CRLP. No. 17540 OF THE DISPOSING PF-rlrloN H,MiNAL ^*,& \%c
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.