1 APHC010177672025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3858/2025 Between: Gudivada Sreeramachandra Murthy and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. P PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION No.3858 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were arraigned as A.2 to A.6 in C.C. No.131 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Jaggayyapeta, NTR District, for the alleged offence under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 3. The learned counsel further submits that petitioners 1 and 2 are the senior citizens, Petitioner No.3 is the brother of A.1, and Petitioners No.4 and 5 are the niece and nephew of the 1st petitioner. It is further submitted that, upon investigation of the alleged crime, the police found no incriminating evidence against petitioners 4 and 5/A.5 and A.6 and accordingly filed a charge sheet. However, pursuant to a protest petition filed by the 2ndrespondent, the learned Magistrate has passed an order taking cognizance of the matter against all the accused. 4. The learned counsel further submits that the learned Magistrate passed the cognizance taken order without assigning any reasons. 5. Considering the submissions and after perusing the order passed by the learned Magistrate, it is evident that the cognizance taken order has 3 been passed and summons to the petitioner are issued, the learned Magistrate has not applied his judicial mind coupled with discretion. 6. The cognizance taken order need not be elaborate, but it should indicate the application of judicial mind and the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate that a prima facie case is made out against the accused. 7. On these grounds, the cognizance taken order dated 11.03.2025 in C.C. No.131 of 2025 is hereby set aside, and the matter is remanded back for passing a fresh cognizance order based on the material available on record. 8. With these observations, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. 9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dt.09.04.2025 BV