ORDER : 1. The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) by the petitioner/Accused Nos.4 and 5 to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 1903 of 2019 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIX Additional Magistrate at Malkajgiri, Cyberabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 417 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 3. Petitioner No. 1 was arrayed as Accused No. 4 and she died during pendency of this petition. Death certificate is filed. 4. Briefly the case of the de facto complainant is that he entered into an agreement with Accused No. 1 for the purchase of property which belongs to these petitioners/accused Nos. 4 and 5. An amount of Rs. 22,00,000/- was taken by accused No. 1 for the sale of house property of these petitioners. However, during the course of investigation, the police found that these petitioners, who are the owner’s have never interacted with the de facto complainant/respondent No. 2 and accused no. 1 had introduced someone else as the owners to the purchaser. On the said basis when the petitioners were not involved in any manner with the sale transaction by accused No. 1, the police dropped proceedings against these petitioners. 5. However, the Learned Magistrate by an endorsement on the charge-sheet directed issuance of summons to accused Nos. 1 to 5. Since the summons were issued without any basis, the petitioners are before this Court questioning the proceedings against them. 6. Initially the case was numbered as C.C. No. 1302 of 2015 against Nos. 1 to 5 and thereafter the case was split up against accused Nos. 2 to 5 and re-numbered as C.C. No. 1903 of 2019. C.C. No. 1302 of 2015 ended in conviction of accused no. 1 by Judgment, dated 19.11.2019. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the even without protest application being filed by the de facto complainant the learned Magistrate committed error in issuing summons to these petitioners to face criminal prosecution. Even the order directing issuance of summons does not reflect application of mind by the learned Magistrate. 8. 1 by Judgment, dated 19.11.2019. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the even without protest application being filed by the de facto complainant the learned Magistrate committed error in issuing summons to these petitioners to face criminal prosecution. Even the order directing issuance of summons does not reflect application of mind by the learned Magistrate. 8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that these are transactions of sale of house property by the petitioners, as such it is for the trial Court to decide whether any offence is made out or not. 9. As seen from the Judgment convicting the accused No. 1 there are no allegations against these petitioners, who are the actual owners. Even, according to the evidence that was produced, the amounts were collected by accused No. 1 from the purchasers. 10. In the course of investigation, the police found that accused No. 1 had introduced someone else as house owners. These petitioners had never interacted with the respondent No. 2/de facto complainant. 11. Issuance of process in criminal trial is a serious issue. Unless the criminal Court finds adequate grounds and reasons to summon the witness, the same cannot be done. In the present case no protest application was filed by the de facto complainant questioning the deletion of the names of these petitioners, when charge sheet was filed. As seen from the endorsement of the learned Magistrate it was ordered to issue summons to accused No. 1 to accused No. 5 without there being any other order or reasons for issuance of summons to these petitioners against whom proceedings were dropped. It appears that the Magistrate without even looking into the charge sheet, mechanically directed issuance of summons. 12. Several quash petitions are being filed before this Court questioning the very cognizance order taken by the learned Magistrates or the Special Courts. The cognizance orders are bereft of any reasons and bald assertions are made for taking cognizance; to illustrate: (i) In some of the orders it is mentioned as “having gone through the statements and other material, the court is satisfied to take cognizance” and accordingly summons are issued. The cognizance orders are bereft of any reasons and bald assertions are made for taking cognizance; to illustrate: (i) In some of the orders it is mentioned as “having gone through the statements and other material, the court is satisfied to take cognizance” and accordingly summons are issued. (ii) In the present case, it is endorsed by the Magistrate as “the complaint is taken on file against the accused for offences punishable U/s.....” (iii) Instead of writing a Cognizance order, stamps are made and stamped on the Charge sheet/complaint and Blanks are filled about the cognizance being taken under the penal provisions and next date of hearing is also filled up, and summons are sent to the accused. (iv) In some of the cases in the remand report, police have prepared the notes of the Magistrate and the Magistrate has filled up the offences, date and signs the remand order. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609 case 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 vs. India Infoline Limited, (2013) 4 SCC 505 the Hon’ble Supreme 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 vs. 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. 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.” 14. In Fakhruddin Ahmad vs. State of Uttaranchal and Another, (2008) 17 SCC 157 , it is held as follows: “17. 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.” 15. In Deepak Gaba and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 3, it was held as follows: “21......A conscious application of the said aspects is required by the Magistrate, as a summoning order has grave consequences of setting criminal proceedings in motion. Even though at the stage of issuing process to the accused the Magistrate is not required to record detailed reasons, there should be adequate evidence on record to set the criminal proceedings into motion. Even though at the stage of issuing process to the accused the Magistrate is not required to record detailed reasons, there should be adequate evidence on record to set the criminal proceedings into motion. The requirement of Section 204 of the Code is that the Magistrate should carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record. He/she may even put questions to complainant and his/her witnesses when examined under Section 200 of the Code to elicit answers to find out the truth about the allegations. Only upon being satisfied that there is sufficient ground for summoning the accused to stand the trial, summons should be issued. Summoning order is to be passed when the complainant discloses the offence, and when there is material that supports and constitutes essential ingredients of the Birla Corporation Limited vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited and Others, (2019) 16 SCC 610 , Pepsi Foods Ltd. (Supra) and Mehmood Ul Rehman vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 . It should not be passed lightly or as a matter of course. When the violation of law alleged is clearly debatable and doubtful, either on account of paucity and lack of clarity of facts, or on application of law to the facts, the Magistrate must ensure clarification of the ambiguities. Summoning without appreciation of the legal provisions and their application to the facts may result in an innocent being summoned to stand the prosecution/trial. Initiation of prosecution and summoning of the accused to stand trial, apart from monetary loss, sacrifice of time, and effort to prepare a defence, also causes humiliation and disrepute in the society. It results in anxiety of uncertain times.” 16. In Babu Venkatesh and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Another in Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 2022 dated 18.02.2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held referring to the judgments in the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and Priyanka Srivastava and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2015) 6 SCC 287 held that it is for the Magistrate to verify the veracity of the allegations since complaints under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. are made in routine manner and without any responsibility and only to harass certain persons. (1) SCC 335 and Priyanka Srivastava and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2015) 6 SCC 287 held that it is for the Magistrate to verify the veracity of the allegations since complaints under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. are made in routine manner and without any responsibility and only to harass certain persons. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has found fault with the Magistrate passing an order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. without following the law laid down in Priyanka Srivastav’s case (supra) and also for non-application of mind to the facts. 17. Normally, the criminal courts pass orders taking cognizance: (1) When charge sheets are filed by the police. (2) When private complaints are filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 500 of IPC etc. (3) Complaints filed into Special Courts such as ACB, CBI, Economic Offences Court. (4) Protest Petition questioning the investigation being closed by the police in a criminal offence. (5) Reference by the Magistrate to police for the purpose of investigation after taking cognizance and if investigation is required for any specific reason U/s.200 Cr.P.C. (6) Though no cognizance is taken, however Magistrates/Special Courts referring mater for the purpose of investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 18. In view of the observations and directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to supra, the act of issuing process and 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 be an order reflecting application of mind by the Presiding Officer while taking cognizance and issuing process. 19. Though elaborate discussion is not required for the purpose of issuing summons, the order taking cognizance should reflect that the Presiding Officer has grasp of the case. The contents of either the charge sheet/private complaint/protest petition are understood by the Presiding Officer and the cognizance orders should reflect that there is a prima facie case stating facts very precisely to summon the accused or refer a case for the purpose of investigation or set aside the findings of investigation and summon the accused. 20. Judicial orders cannot be cryptic or vague or bald assertion that an offence is made out. 20. Judicial orders cannot be cryptic or vague or bald assertion that an offence is made out. It would not suffice to merely mention that cognizance is taken or that mere mentioning that the Presiding Officer is satisfied on the basis of the record that it is a fit case to take cognizance and issue summons. When the order does not reflect even briefly what the case is about, it is apparent that the Presiding Officer has not applied his mind judicially to the facts of the case before summoning the accused to face criminal trial and the orders are mechanically passed without even considering whether the allegations or the contents of such charge sheets/complaints make out a prima facie case. 21. However, elaborate discussion would be required at the stage of discharge under Sections 227, 239 or 245 of Cr.P.C. 22. In several cases it is found that cognizance was mechanically taken and process and summons were ordered in cases which are purely civil disputes. To illustrate, in a money transaction when loan was taken and part of the amount was paid and remaining part unpaid, several cases are found wherein summons are issued, trial are conducted and later acquitted. In cases of criminal misappropriation, when there is no element of entrustment even then cognizance is taken and after examination of several witnesses, the court concludes that there is no entrustment and consequently acquits. 23. In cases under Section 498-A of IPC the relatives of the husband who have not even met the aggrieved/victim/wife are made parties on bald allegations. In cases of criminal trespass, where there are long pending civil dispute and though there is an order in favour of the accused restraining the complainant from entering into the property but still the charge sheets are filed, though the details of the civil disputes are mentioned in the charge sheet, cognizance is taken. 24. These illustrations are only a few and several cases are regularly being filed in the High Court for quashing proceedings. As seen in appeals, criminal revisions, quash petitions, the same are allowed on the basis of there being no evidence whatsoever. 25. Non-application of mind while taking cognizance is resulting in a time consuming trial being undertaken by Criminal Courts. The criminal Courts are over burdened with cases and criminal trials are being undertaken for years together. As seen in appeals, criminal revisions, quash petitions, the same are allowed on the basis of there being no evidence whatsoever. 25. Non-application of mind while taking cognizance is resulting in a time consuming trial being undertaken by Criminal Courts. The criminal Courts are over burdened with cases and criminal trials are being undertaken for years together. A criminal trial is undertaken in cases where there is no prima facie case. Not only the precious time of the Court is being wasted but also a person is forced to undergo rigmarole of criminal trial as a result of mechanically taking cognizance of a case. At the inception itself the courts are competent to either refuse to take cognizance or discharge the accused. 26. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following directions in view of the observation/directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Judgments mentioned (supra) which shall be scrupulously followed by the trial Courts on criminal side in the State of Telangana: (1) While referring a case under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. the Magistrate shall make a very brief note of the case and his satisfaction that it is a fit case to be investigated by the police. (2) In Sessions Cases, where the charge sheets are filed in the Magistrate’s Court, the learned Magistrate shall take cognizance giving reference to the offence very briefly before summoning the accused. Though a committal order is written in detail, it is necessary that even at the time of taking cognizance of the charge sheet filed by the police, the Magistrate shall pass orders reflecting his satisfaction. (3) Similarly, in protest petitions being filed, when the Court records the statement of witnesses produced or/and documents being considered, appropriate orders be passed reflecting understanding of the Presiding Officer about the facts of the case. (4) As already stated, there need not be a detailed order while taking cognizance but should reflect the objective satisfaction of the Presiding Officer. (5) It is also observed in criminal trials that though the main witnesses turn hostile to the prosecution case, the other witnesses are being mechanically examined who have no bearing on the subject matter of the case. Magistrates may use their discretion in examination of such witnesses. (5) It is also observed in criminal trials that though the main witnesses turn hostile to the prosecution case, the other witnesses are being mechanically examined who have no bearing on the subject matter of the case. Magistrates may use their discretion in examination of such witnesses. (6) In sessions trials, when the main witnesses turn hostile to the prosecution case and learned Sessions Judge is of the opinion that no purpose would be served, if the remaining witnesses are examined, the learned Sessions Judge shall invoke powers under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. and acquit the accused. (7) Precious time of the court shall not be wasted by recording evidence which to the knowledge of the Presiding Officer and the Public Prosecutor would not serve any useful purpose. 27. In the present case there is total non application of mind by the learned Magistrate in issuance of summons. Further on facts also no case is made out against the petitioners since the de facto complainant has never dealt with these petitioners, who are the owners of the property directly. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No. 1 had arranged two persons who impersonated as these petitioners, for the said reasons the proceedings against petitioner No. 2 deserves to be quashed and the petition against petitioner No. 1 is abated. 28. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. 29. Registry is directed to circulate the judgment to the Courts concerned in the State of Telangana.