Telangana High Court
Sampalli Yugender Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 9 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5243 of 2026
Date: 09.04.2026
Between:
Sampalli Yugender Rao and seven others
...petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8
AND
The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another
...respondents
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused
Nos.1 to 8 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.481 of
2026, pending on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge
cum III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy
District at LB Nagar, for the offences punishable under Sections
498A and 406 if the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Heard Mr. K. Rama Subba Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.
2
3. With the consent of both the learned counsel, the criminal
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 same, notice in respect of respondent No.2/defacto
complainant is dispensed with.
4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that the learned Magistrate without recording
satisfaction and without assigning any reasons has taken cognizance
and issued summons to the petitioners and the same is contrary to
the principle laid down in Sunil Bharati Mittal v. Central Bureau
of Investigation1.
5. The above said submissions are not opposed by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor.
6. 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
without applying his mind and without assigning any reasons,
1
(2015) 4 SCC 609
3
especially taken cognizance against the accused and not against the
offences through cognizance order passed in C.C.No.481 of 2026.
7. 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 Option Trust v. India Infoline Limited 2, 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
Enforcemnet Officer v. Videocon International Limited 3, 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
2
(2013) 4 SCC 505
3
(2008) 2 SCC 492
4
Court in Sunil Bharati Mittal‘s case (Supra), further held as
follows:
“Sine Qua Non for taking cognizance of the offence is the application
of mind by the Magistrate and his satisfaction that the allegations, if
proved, would constitute an offence. It is, therefore, imperative that on
a complaint or on a police report, the Magistrate is bound to consider
the question as to whether the same discloses commission of an
offence and is required to form such an opinion in this respect. When
he does so and decides to issue process, he shall be said to have taken
cognizance. At the stage of taking cognizance, the only consideration
before the Court remains to consider judiciously whether the material
on which the prosecution proposes to prosecute the accused brings
out a prima facie case or not.”
8. In Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal and
another 4, it is held as follows:
“Nevertheless, it is 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 in the complaint or in the police report or the
information received from a source other than a police report, as the
case may be, and the material filed therewith. It needs little
emphasis that it is only when the Magistrate applies his mind and is
satisfied that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence
and decides to initiate proceedings against the alleged offender, that
it can be positively stated that he has taken cognizance of the
offence. Cognizance is in regard to the offence and not the
offender.”
9. 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 directing summons to a person to face
criminal trial cannot be on the basis of cryptic orders and it should
4
(2008) 17 SCC 157
5
be an order reflecting application of mind by the Presiding Officer
while taking cognizance and issuing process.
10. For the foregoing reasons as well as 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 cognizance order passed in C.C.No.481 of
2026, pending on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge
cum III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy
District at LB Nagar, 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.
11. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
09.04.2026
ggd