M/S SAS INFRATECH PVT. LTD.  [Appellant(s)] Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.  [Respondent(s)]

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2574/2024

(2JB, BELA M. TRIVEDI and PANKAJ MITHAL JJ.)

Facts: The present Appeal filed by the appellant – complainant is directed against the Judgment and order dated 14-9-2023 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, in Criminal Petition No.8938 of 2023, whereby the High Court has allowed the said petition filed by Respondent No.2 – accused herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and set aside the docket order dated 30-6-2023 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Kukapally.

Issue: : What is meant by “taking cognizance of an offence” by a Magistrate within the contemplation of Section 190?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:

The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has placed reliance of the decision of this Court in “Priyanka Srivastava And Another Versus State of Uttar Pradesh And Others” (2015) 6 SCC 287 to submit that the complaint filed by the appellant – complainant was not supported by an affidavit.

Held: The court holds that, ‘it is clear that when the Magistrate in exercise of his judicial discretion directs investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C., he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence. It is only when the Magistrate after applying his mind prefers to follow the procedure under Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. by resorting to Sections 200, he can be said to have taken cognizance of the offence..In the instant case, as transpiring from the order passed by the Trial Court, the said Court had perused the complaint and the documents in support thereof, and also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant – complainant and after having been prima facie satisfied, it had exercised its judicial discretion directing investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. Such order being just, legal and proper, the High Court should not 6 have interfered with the same, more particularly while exercising limited powers under Section 482 of Cr. P.C.