An Order Summoning Accused Must Reflect Due Consideration Of Material On Record — It Cannot Be A Mechanical Exercise: Telangana High Court

“Cognizance Is Not an Empty Formality” – Telangana High Court holding that a Magistrate’s order taking cognizance of offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) must not be a “mere formality” and must demonstrate proper judicial reasoning. The Court quashed the summons issued against the petitioner (accused No.2) and remanded the matter back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, for a fresh determination with a reasoned order.

The Court’s ruling is notable not only for reaffirming the standard of judicial scrutiny required at the stage of cognizance but also for clarifying the maintainability of criminal revision petitions against such summoning orders — which it held are not interlocutory and therefore revisable under Section 397 Cr.P.C.

“Summoning Order Must Reflect Judicial Satisfaction” – Magistrate’s Mechanical Cognizance Order Set Aside

The case involved a criminal revision filed by the petitioner Mahesh Kulakarni, who was aggrieved by a docket order dated 28.06.2025 passed by the CJM, Hyderabad. The said order took cognizance of alleged offences under Sections 305, 318(2), and 317(2) of the BNS, 2023, and issued summons to both the accused — A1 (a bank employee) and A2 (the petitioner herein).

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi held that the Magistrate failed to record any reasons for taking cognizance, nor did the order reflect a judicial analysis of whether there was a prima facie case against A2. Accordingly, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The prosecution arose from a family dispute involving Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) created by the father of the de facto complainant (sister of A1). A1, a bank employee, allegedly obtained duplicate FDRs on the false pretext that the originals were lost and then transferred the maturity proceeds to A2 — the petitioner.

The petitioner, in turn, contended that he had advanced loans to A1 amounting to Rs. 21,04,000, of which Rs. 18,50,000 was repaid before the account was frozen. He was neither named in the original complaint nor in witness statements, and was arrayed as A2 solely based on the fund transfer. It was argued that no specific role or mens rea had been attributed to him.

The Magistrate’s order simply stated:

“Register as C.C.No.6274 of 2025. Taken on file for the offence U/s. 305, 318(2), 317(2) of BNS against A1 and A2. Issue summons to A1 and A2. Call on 07.11.2025.”

The petitioner challenged this order in revision, claiming it lacked judicial reasoning and amounted to a mechanical issuance of process.

Maintainability of Revision Against Summoning Order – Not Barred by Section 397(2) Cr.P.C.

A preliminary objection was raised by the State, arguing that the revision was barred under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C., which prohibits revisions against interlocutory orders.

However, the High Court decisively held that orders taking cognizance and issuing process are not interlocutory but quasi-final in nature as they adversely affect the accused's rights and initiate criminal proceedings.

Citing Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, and Rajendra Kumar Pande v. Uttam, the Court observed:

“An order which substantially affects the right of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties, cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision under Section 397(2).”

The Court further reiterated from Rajendra Kumar Pande:

“It would not be appropriate to hold that an order directing issuance of process is purely interlocutory... On the other hand, it must be held to be intermediate or quasi-final.”

Accordingly, the revision was held maintainable.

Judicial Duty While Taking Cognizance – “Court Cannot Summon Accused Without Cogent Reasons”

Turning to the merits, Justice Sridevi emphasized the judicial obligation to apply mind while taking cognizance under Section 204 Cr.P.C. The Court referred extensively to the judgment in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, (AIR 2015 SC 923), noting that the issuance of summons must follow from the Magistrate's clear opinion formed after evaluating the available material.

Quoting the Supreme Court:

“An opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the accused, and such formation of opinion is to be stated in the order itself.”

The Telangana High Court held that the absence of any reasoning in the order dated 28.06.2025 rendered it unsustainable, especially as the petitioner had not been directly named in the complaint nor was there material to indicate his mens rea.

“The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality and it is a serious issue. The Court cannot summon the accused to face criminal trial without giving cogent reasons.”

The mere fact that funds were transferred to A2’s account, without more, could not automatically result in criminal prosecution without a reasoned finding that there was a prima facie case.

Cognizance Order Set Aside and Matter Remanded

In light of the lack of judicial application of mind and the failure to record reasons while taking cognizance, the High Court quashed the docket order dated 28.06.2025 and remanded the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

The Magistrate was directed to pass a reasoned order and to remain uninfluenced by any observations made by the High Court in this judgment.

“The learned Magistrate shall not be influenced by any observations made by this Court in this order.”

All pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

Date of Decision: 06.10.2025