The Telangana High Court has recently expressed concern over Magistrates taking cognizance of offences by 'using rubber stamps' and passing 'routine and mechanical orders', while noting that the court had set aside more than 500 such cognizance orders since January 2026.

“…Since January 2026, this Court has set aside more than 500 cognizance orders. In those matters, the accused approached this Court by filing criminal petitions, questioning the legality of the proceedings, inter alia, on the ground that the learned Magistrates had taken cognizance without following the procedure prescribed by law…”, the court said.

The single judge bench of Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, while disposing of a plea to set aside a cognizance order passed by a JFMC in Ranga Reddy District, also observed that the cognizance in the current case was taken 'against the accused and not the offence' as per the docket order, contrary to the principles laid down by the apex court.

The court also issued institutional directions to the Registrar (Judicial) and the Telangana State Judicial Academy to sensitise judicial officers.

“…A copy of this order shall also be forwarded to the Director of the Telangana State Judicial Academy, Secunderabad, with a direction to organize appropriate training programmes for concerned judicial officers, particularly on the legal requirements and principles governing the taking of cognizance and the necessity of recording independent prima facie satisfaction before proceeding further in a criminal case…”, the single judge bench remarked further.

For context, the plea was filed by the de facto complainant, aggrieved by a magistrate order, taking cognizance for the offence under Section 122(2) [ voluntarily causing grievous hurt upon provocation] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, against respondent Nos. 2 to 8-accused Nos. 1 to 7.

For context, based on the petitioner-de facto complainant's information, Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad registered an FIR in August 2025 against Accused Nos. 1 -7 /R2-R8 for the offence under Section 109[attempt to murder] r/w Section 3(5) of the BNS. The provisions were subsequently changed to Section 122(2) [voluntarily causing grievous hurt upon provocation] of the BNS.

After recording the statements of witnesses and completing the investigation, the IO filed the final report before the trial court in July 2026

The High Court, after checking the final report, noted that the Magistrate initially took cognizance against the 'accused' and not for the offence under Section 122(2) of the BNS, and issued summons 'even without mentioning the date when he took cognizance'.

Adv VSRMV Prasad Sanaka for the petitioner argued that cognizance was taken against R2-R8 without recording any specific reason, and not against the offence per se.

The counsel further submitted that if the trial court, based on the final report, proceeded with the trial and if the accused were ultimately convicted after a full-fledged trial, they could later question the validity of the cognizance order. The counsel contended further that this scenario would cause serious prejudice to the de facto complainant, resulting in multiple rounds of litigation.

The APP for the state, Adv. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla conceded that the Magistrate should have taken cognizance of the offence and not cognizance against the accused.

The court, in turn, referred to multiple decisions of the apex court like in Sunil Bharti Mittal [2015] and GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust[2013] , to underscore that 'cognizance is taken of the offence and not of the offender'.

“ … Whenever such cognizance orders are set aside and the matters are remitted to the trial Courts, the proceedings have to recommence from the threshold stage, including the issuance of fresh summons to the accused. Consequently, considerable judicial time is consumed in correcting procedural errors”, the court observed further.

Moreover, the court referred to the precedent in Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Limited[2008], wherein the Apex Court held that taking cognizance and issuance of process are two distinct stages,

“….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 summons”, the Court held.

The Court underlined the systemic consequences of such lapses: when cognizance orders are set aside and matters remitted, proceedings must recommence from the threshold stage, including issuance of fresh summons, consuming considerable judicial time in correcting errors that could have been avoided at the initial stage.

The criminal petition was accordingly disposed of, and the impugned cognizance order was set aside, and the Magistrate was directed to take cognizance afresh in accordance with law.

“…The object of these directions is not merely to rectify the procedural defects arising in individual cases but also to ensure that such errors do not recur, thereby preventing unnecessary litigation, reducing the burden on the High Court, safeguarding the interests of the accused and victims, and ensuring the effective utilization of valuable judicial time and public resources…”, the court noted before parting with the order.