APHC010244242026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3854/2026 Between: 1. ARIGALLA ALIAS ARIGELA NAGESWAR RAO, S/O. LATE VENKATESWARLU AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,R/O D.NO 2-125, NEAR POLERAMMA TEMPLE,GORANTLA, GUNTUR CITY DISTRICT, A.P.- 522034. 2. ARIGALLA ALIAS ARIGELA PADMA, W/O. NAGESWAR RAO,AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE,R/O D.NO 2-125, NEAR POLERAMMA TEMPLE,GORANTIA, GUNTUR CITY DISTRICT, A.P.- 522034. 3. ARIGALIA ALIAS ARIGELA SRIKANTH, S/O. NAGESWAR RAO,AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. PVT EMPLOYEE,R/O D.NO 2-125, NEAR POLERAMMA TEMPLE,GORANTIA, GUNTUR CITY DISTRICT, A.P.- 522034. 4. ARIGALLA ALIAS ARIGELA JAYA LAKSHMI, D/O NAGESWAR RAOAGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE,R/O D.NO 2-125, NEAR POLERAMMA TEMPLE,GORANTIA, GUNTUR CITY DISTRICT, A.P.- 522034. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA 2 PRADESH, AT AMARAVATI 2. KURNALA USHA RANI, W/O. SATYA KISHOREAGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 4-8-127/21 LANE, SAKETHAPURAM, KORETIPADU, GUNTUR-522007 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. UMA MAHESWAR KATAKAMSETTY 2. Umamaheswar Katakamsetty Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’)/Section 528 of the BharatiyaNagarikSurakshaSanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’)seeking to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.3145 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Special Mobile Judge, Guntur. 2. Notice to Respondent No.2 is dispensed with, since the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners is that the learned Trial Court passed a cryptic order without assigning any reasons, much less valid reasons, while taking cognizance of the offences. 3. Heard learned counsel for Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3 4. This Court in Allam Giri v. Gudupu Harika1,relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation2,held that the order of taking cognizance must be supported with at least brief reasons. 5. In the instant case, the impugned order of taking cognizance is stereotypical in nature. The learned Presiding Officer appears to have merely filled in blank columns with certain provisions of law, without assigning any reasons, much less valid reasons, for taking cognizance.The impugned order of taking cognizance, is liable to be set aside. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class‑cum‑Special Mobile Judge, Guntur, is directed to pass a reasoned order of taking cognizance, if the charge sheet is otherwise required to be taken on file. The proceedings of taking cognizance passed in C.C. No. 3145 of 2024 on the file of the learned Trial Court are hereby quashed against Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 4. 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 05.05.2026 PRA 1 2025 SCC OnLine AP 2689 2 (2015) 4 SCC 609 4 262 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3854 of 2026 Date:05.05.2026 PRA