Allowed

Tejavath Shankar Naik, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Nov 2025CRLP/14332/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition to quash C.C.No.2634 of 2020 against accused Nos.1 & 4 charged with possessing PDS rice allegedly procured from beneficiaries for resale. Following a coordinate bench ruling that mere possession without deceptive inducement does not sustain prosecution, the High Court quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 4 in C.C.No.2634 of 2020 before the IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B. Nagar, quashed; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Tejavath Shankar Naik, Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 14332 OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

Tejavath Shankar Naik,, Son of Late Walya, Age. 42 Years, Occ.Business, R/o D.No.301, Block 5, Singam Cheruvu, Thanda, Nacharam

¶8

Manikanta Rathore @Manikanta Rathode,, Son of Narendra Rathore@ Narendra Rathode Age. 34 years, Occ. Business and Owner of vehicle Bharat Benz 1214 R 4x2 BS-lll Bearing No. KA-33 A -5950 and Business, R/o H.No.1-1-42 Laxmi Thimmappa Trading and General [\4erchant shop No.4, APMC,Yard, Yadgir, Hyderabad ltllain Road, Gurmitkaltown and Panchayath,

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 1 & 4

¶10

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad

¶12

... 1 "t RESPONDENT/STATE

¶13

A.Prem Kumar,, S/o Nagabhushan Rao, Aged about 44 years,Occ. Assistant Civil Supply Officer, Uppal Circle. R/o Fl No.642, 4th Floor, 6th Block, Janapriya Quarters, Mohan Nagar, Kothapet, Hyderabad

¶14

...2nd RESPON DFNT/COMPLATNANT

¶15

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memprandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call forthe records in connection with C.C.No.2634of 2020, on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Metropalitan Magistrate at L.B.Nagar, Rachakonda Commissionarate and QUASH the C.C.No.2634 of 2020 against the petitioners/Accused No. 1 and 4 herein and to pass such gther order or orders as the Hon'ble Court deem fit and^proper in the circumstanids of the case.

¶16

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025

¶17

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the [Vlemqrandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay of all further^proceedings including appearance of the petitioners in C.C.No.2634 of 2020 on the file of Court of the Court of the lV Additional Metropalitan Magistrate at L.B.Nagar, Rachakonda Commissionarate, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition.

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Somavarapu Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad on behalf of the Respondent No.1/ State.

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶20

¶21

.ii

¶22

THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14332 of 2025

¶24

ORDER:-

¶25

This criminal Petition is filed under section s2B of Bharatiya Nagarik suraksha sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking the court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 4 in c.c.No.2634 of 2020, on the file of the learned lv Additionat Metropolitan Magistrate at L.B.Nagar, Rachakonda commissionerate, registered for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC and section 7 of Essentiat commodities Act, 1 955.

¶26

Heard sri somavarapu satyanarayana, rearned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 4 as well as sri Jitender Rao veeramalla, the learned Additional Public^prosecuto6 appearing for the respondent No.1- State.

¶27

The specific allegations against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 4 are that the petitioners herein have procured^p, DS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 07.09.2019 at 09.00 hours, the petitioners were found in possession of 145.20 quintals of PDS rice.

¶28

¶29

¶30

EID,J Crl.P.xo.14332_2025

¶31

¶32

Learned counser for the petitioners wourd further submit that without there being any compraint from any beneficiary afleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging the petitioners for prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations on their face varue cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Further, this Court in Crl.p.Nos.5709 of 20.19 and 33493 of 2015 while considering the same situation, categorica[y observed that the offences aileged against the petitioners therein cannot be continued and quashed the proceedings. The petitioners herein are also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against them.

¶33

The learned Additionar pubric prosecutor submitted that as per prosecution, the offence said to have been committed by the petitioners is cheating and vioration of sections z aho a of ttre Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and hence requested to pass appropriate orders.

¶34

Perused the material available on record

¶35

Sections I and B of the Essential Commodities Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of essentiar commodities or abetment

¶36

¶37

ETD,J Crl.P.No.14332_202 5

¶38

in this regard, is punishable. As per the^prosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer.

¶39

¶40

¶41

A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025 has

¶42

considered the identicalfacts and observed that:-

¶43

"There is no averment indicating that the petitioners in any way deceptively induced the beneficiaries to^paft with the supplied PDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice^purchased by them with the petitioners and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violation of a lawful direction or contract. ln the absence of essenfral factors, on the^faceof prosecution, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings agarnsf the petitioners is abuse of process of law."

¶44

The facts and circumstances of the^present case also are similar to those in the above case and hence, this Cqort^{findsit to be} a fit case to exercise^jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 by applying the same analogy and to^quash the^proceedings against the petitioners herein.

¶45

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 4 in C.C.No.2634 of 2020, on the file of the learned lV^Additional

¶46

¶47

ETO,J Crl.P.No.14332_2025

¶48

Metropolitan Magistrate at

¶49

L.B.Nagar, Rachakonda

¶50

Commissionerate, are hereby quashed.

¶51