APHC010260932025 IN THE HfGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRA, AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF . TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5R9R of JUN Between: .CK.248t^|/o^Subbaiah^ H^No^/^^^ of scooter bearing No. AP.21 ■ uDOaiah, H.No. 1-69, Chapirevula village, Nandyal Mandal ...Petitioner and District. AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati Devanandam Bannuru Village, Jupadu Bunglow Mandal, Rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of j , resident of 80- Nandyal District. ...Respondents Petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha praying that in the circumstances stated i Criminal Petition, the High Court i quash the taking cognizance under petitioner in a quite mechanicai manner and without application of mind, by mereiy filling the blanks In a stereo typed format and issuing impugned summoning Order dated 23-1-2022 as well as launched against the petitioner in C.C. No.92 of 2022 Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur. Sanhita, 2023 in the Memorandum of Grounds of may be pleased to allow the petition and Section 304-A of I PC against the the entire proceedings passed by Judicial lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in C.C.N. 92 of 2022 on the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BUDIGE TEJARAM Counsel for the Respondent No.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: -- The Court made the following ORDER: APHC010260932025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5626/2025 Between: Polisetti Naga Seshaiah ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT{S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.BUDIGETEJARAM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner is challenging the cognizance order passed by the learned Magistrate, contending that the cognizance appears to have been taken based on a printed proforma. in this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such a practice has been deprecated in the judgment of Monica and Vinay Malhotra Vs. The State of Rajasthan, (reported in 2011 (2) CriLR 1750). It is contended that the learned Magistrate ought to have passed a reasoned order while taking cognizance of the matter. 2. \ Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1®‘ respondent- State. Perused the material available on record. 3. The printed proforma, which serves as a checklist for the charge sheet, was submitted along with the charge sheet. The same was verified by the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court and placed before the learned Magistrate for appropriate orders regarding cognizance. 4. As seen from the record, the learned Magistrate has perused the relevant material and the charge sheet and found sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused for the offence 5. under Section 304 (A) of IPC. This Court finds no infirmity in the cognizance order passed by the learned Magistrate. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. KASI RAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// secTkdn officer To, 1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur. 2. One CC to SRI. BUDIGE TEJARAM Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CC to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies Chp CHP HIGH COURT DATED:17/06/2025 ORDER CRLP No. 5626 OF 2025 ■q^NDH^ I 10 SEP 2025 B ^ ^ Current Section ^ DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION