1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1, seeking to set aside the cognizance order dated 04.11.2019 in C.C.No.1824 of 2019 passed by the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal.

2. Mr.Mohd. Amjad Ali Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to the order dated 23.04.2026, he sent personal notice to respondent No.2 and filed proof of service before the Registry. According to him, notice sent by him was delivered to respondent No.2 on 12.06.2026. In spite of the same, respondent No.2 has not chosen to enter appearance.

3. Heard Mr.Mohd. Amjad Ali Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1. With their consent, the criminal petition is disposed of.

4. Upon perusal of the record, it reveals that the learned Magistrate on 04.11.2019 without recording satisfaction and without assigning any reasons has taken cognizance and issued summons to the petitioner and other accused. Therefore, the docket order dated 04.11.2019 passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be quashed.

5. It is very much relevant to mention that in Sunil Bharati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation((2015) 4 SCC 609), 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((2013) 4 SCC 505), 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 Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Limited((2008) 2 SCC 492), 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 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.”

6. In Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal and another((2008) 17 SCC 157), 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.”

7. In view of the observations and directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to supra, the act of issuing process for summoning an accused to face a criminal trial is a serious issue and such orders directing the issuance of summons to a person to face criminal trial cannot be passed on the basis of cryptic orders and it should be an order reflecting due application of mind by the Presiding Officer while taking cognizance and issuing process. 8. For the foregoing reasons as well as 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 the cognizance order dated 04.11.2019 in C.C.No.1824 of 2019 passed by the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal, 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.

9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.