Hyderabad: Telangana high court has expressed strong dissatisfaction over magistrates taking cognisance of criminal cases “without following the procedure prescribed by law, passing routine and mechanical orders, and failing to show due application of mind to the material placed before them”.




The court observed that it had repeatedly come across cases where magistrates “were using rubber stamps and passing cryptic orders while taking cognisance”.




It said that since Jan 2026, over 500 cognisance orders have been set aside. Despite previous directions, the same procedural lapses continued, causing avoidable litigation, delays, and hardship to both victims and accused.




The court directed the registrar (Judicial-I) to send a copy of the order to all principal district and sessions judges, who must circulate it to magistrates under their jurisdiction.




It also directed that a copy be forwarded to the director of Telangana State Judicial Academy, Secunderabad, for organising training programmes to sensitise judicial officers on the legal requirements for taking cognisance and recording independent prima facie satisfaction.




Justice J Sreenivas Rao passed these directions while setting aside a cognisance order issued by the II additional junior civil judge-cum-X additional judicial magistrate of first class, Rangareddy district at Kukatpally in connection with an attempt to murder case reported at Gachibowli, Cyberabad. Taking cognisance of an offence means that a court or magistrate decides to initiate legal proceedings.




The magistrate had taken cognisance of the alleged offence against seven accused persons and issued summons.




Challenging this, the complainant in the attempt to murder case moved high court, stating that the magistrate had taken cognisance against the accused, instead of the offence, without recording satisfaction or assigning reasons.




“This order was contrary to settled law laid down by Supreme Court, which requires magistrates to examine the complaint or police report, apply judicial mind, and record prima facie satisfaction before initiating proceedings,” he added.




Taking note of police completing the investigation and filing a final report before the magistrate in July 2026, high court pointed out that the magistrate issued summons without even mentioning the date on which cognisance was taken.




Setting aside the cognisance order, the court directed the magistrate to take cognisance afresh in accordance with law and in line with Supreme Court precedents.