Namindla Padma 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 2026-04-08. Namindla Padma v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO c Between 1- Namindla Padma, wo Komuraiah, Age. 60 years, occupation. Househord, R/o H. No - 3 1 . 1 -249, Komatipa ry, Hasa nla rthy,' Hi n ur;k;rfu; oirtriii. ' 2. Namindla Komu. raiah,. s/o Durgaiah, Age. 62 years, occupation. Farmer, R/o H. No. 31 -1 -249, Komatipafiy, HJsanpart[y, Hanumaiconda District. 3. Namindla Divya, D/o Komuraiah, Age. 2g years, occupation. Student, R/o HNo. 31 -1 -249, Komatipaily, Hasanparthy, Hanumakonda District. .. petitioner/Accused No. 2 to 4 AND 1. rhe State R"prglel! 9! _uv the pubtic prosecutor, Hish :1]:llrg:T, Court Buildings, Hyderabad. Though PS. WPS i, Warangal. Hanumakonda District. ... Respondent 2. Namindla Mounika, prashanth, wo Age. 29, occupation. Govt. Teacher, SGT, at Dornakal, R/o H. No. 25_7_114t4: Siri Colony, kazipet, Hanumakonda District. ...
RespondenUDe-facto Com ptainant 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 C'C. No. 1744 of 2022 on the fi{e of the Principal Junior Civit Judge-cum- Judicial First Class Magistrate at Hanumakonda in respect of the petitioners (A2 to A4). l. A. NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition ttnder Section 151 of cPC 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 against the petitioners (A2 to 44) in c. c. No. 1744 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Junior civil Judge-cum-Judicial First class Magistrate at Hanumakonda, including personal appearance of the petitioners pending disposal of the above CRL|, This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. p.
Jagan Mohan' Advocarte for the Petitioners and the Mr. Jithender Rao veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of None appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER i I li il ,,/ r) IN HIGH CO FOR THE OF AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENryAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. Et46 of 2026 Date: O8. O4. 2O26 Between: Namindla Padma and 2 others Petitioners AND State of Telangana, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, Through PS: WPS 1, Warangal, Hanumakonda District and another .. Respondents ()RDER ' This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 to 4, seeking to quash the proceedings in c. c. No. 1744 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Junior civil Judge-cum-Judicial First class Magistrate, Hanumakonda. 2. Heard Mr. P. Jagan Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.
Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1. . \. :\ A/ i rith 3. \ the consent of both the learned counsel, the crimineLl petition is disposed of at the admission stage on the ground that even according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the matter before the learned Trial Court has not riped for the trial yet. In view of the s€une, notice in respect of respondent No. 2/defacto complainant is dispensed with. 4. Learned counsel- for the petitioners submitted that the learned Magistrate, without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons, has taken cognizance against the pel:itioners on 25. 06. 2022 and issued summons mechanically and passed cryptic docket order. Therefore, the docket order dated 25. 06. 2022 passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be quashed. 5. Learried Assistant Public Prosecutor has not opposed the subrrissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners 6.
Haring considered the rival submissions made by the respectivr: parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the learned Magistrate has taken cognzartce without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons against the accused and not against the offences, through docket order dated 25. 06. 2022. 7. It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittal a. Central Bureau of Inaestigationl the Honble 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 Emplogees Stoclc Option Tntst a. India Infoline Llmite&, 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. In Chief EnJorcentnet Offtcer a.
Videocon Intenta,tiono,l Limite&, the Honble Supreme Court while discussing the expressiort'cognizance' held that in criminal law 'cogrrizarrce' 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 ' lzors;4 scc scc 5e5* '1zorr14 lzooa; zscc 492 ,l Sunil Bho;rati Mittq. l's co,se (Supra), further held as follows "iline Qua Non for taking cognizance of the offene is the qcplication of mind bg the Magi. strate and hb sati. sfaction tl,. at the allegations, if proued, would constitute an offence. It b, tterefore, imperattue that on a complsint "or on a police report, the Magbtrate i,s bound to consider the question as to whether tle same drisc/oses ammission of an offene and b required to form such an opinion in thi. s respect.
When he dcres so and decides to issue pro@ss, h,e shnll be said to futue taken cognirunce. At the stage of takirq cognizance, the onlg consideration before tte Court remains to consider judiciousty uh. ether the material on which the proseantion proposes to proseante the accused brings out a prima facie case or not. " 8. In Fckhtttddin Ahmqd u. State of Uttaranchal and another<, it is held as follows: "Neuertheless, it is well settled that before a M'agistrate can be said. to haue taken cognizance of an oJ. fence, it is imperatiue that he must hnue taken nottc,e of the accrtsatior* and applied his mind to the atlegations made in th. e complaint or in the police report or ttrc information receiued from a source ottrcr ttnrt a police re,gort, as tle c@se mdA be, and the materialfiled therewitlt It needs little emphasi. s that it i"s onlg wlrcn the Magistrate ap,plies his mind anfi. is sati.
sfied that tle allegatiors, if prou€d, would crlmstifiite an offence and decides to initiate pntceedings against th. e alleged offender, tttat it can be positiuelg stated tlnt le ha"s talcen cognizance of the oflbnce. Cognizarrce i,s in regard to the offence and not th. e ofJ'ender. " 9. In view of the observations and directions of the Honble fiupreme Court in the judgments referred to supra, the act ol'issuing process of summoning the accused to face criminal trial is a serious issue and such orders directing . ar - Y o lzoot; 17 sc(l 157 Summonstoapersontofacecriminaltrialcannotbeonthe reflecting an order basis of cryptic ord'ers and it should be Officer while taking the Presiding of mind by application issuing Process' cognizxtce and lo. Fortheforegoingreasonsandinviewoftheprinciples judgments cited in the Apex Court the Honble laid down by this Court going into the other grounds' supra,and without isoftheconsideredviewthatdocketord'erdated25. 06.
2022 passedbythelearnedPrincipalJuniorCivilJudge-curm- in Hanumakonda First Class Magistrate' Judicial C. C. No. |T44of2o22isliabletobequashedandaccordingly this ord'er will not preclude the learned quashed. However, Magistratefromtakingcognizartceandpassingordersafresh in accordance with law, by giving reasons' is disposed of' 11. Accordingly, the criminal petition shall stand applications' if any' Pending miscellaneous DEVI P ANT COPY" ,TTRUE OFFICER SECTION To, 1. The at 2. The 3. Two (our) Hyderabad Advocate \OPUCI Jagan 4. One CC to Mr. P. Mohan, 5. Two CD CoPies u HIGH COURT DATED: OBtO4t2O26 i ris (J 1 5 t'PB ? I? I ORDER 9;' CRLP. No. S146 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION .. *t"X g &"
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.