Allowed

Shaik Shafi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Dec 2025CRLP/16441/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners accused of possessing 60 bags of PDS rice allegedly bought from beneficiaries sought quashing of CC proceedings under Section 420 IPC and Section 7 EC Act. Following a coordinate bench ruling on identical facts, the court found no deception or dishonest misappropriation averred and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.333 of 2022 against petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 quashed; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Shaik Shafi Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

-[33031:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ]1,VENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 16441 OF 2025

¶7

Between

¶8

Shaik Shafi, S/o. Shaik Saleem, Age 22 years, Occ. Driver, R/o. Vinayak Nagar, Kotagiri Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District,Telangana State.

¶9

Habeeb Khan, S/o. Mahaboob Khan, Age 31 years, Occ. Labour, R/o. Raikur Village, Rudrur Mandal, Nizamabad District,Telangana State.

¶10

Shaik^javeed, S/o. Shaik Jahoor, Age 43 years, Occ. Labour, R/o. Shafilgally, Rudrur Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District,Telangana State.

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

P. Nikhil Raj, S/o. Not known, Age 46 years, Occ. Dy. Tahasildar (CS), Varni Mandal, R/o. Bodhan Town and Mandal, Nizamabad District, Telangana State.

¶15

RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC No. 333 of 2022 on the file of the Hon'ble Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bodhan in so far as petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3

¶17

l.A NO: 2 OF 2025

¶18

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proc-eedings against the petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 in CC No. 333 of 2022 on the file of the Hon'ble Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bodhan pending disposal of the main criminal petition

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri ALLURI DIVAKAR REDDY ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1. and none appear for the Respondent No2.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

TATE AT HYDERABAD

¶23

THE TIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION No.16441 of 2025

¶25

Datez 10.12.2025

¶26

Between:

¶27

Shaik Shafi and another

¶28

.Petitioners

¶29

AND

¶30

The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and another

¶31

Respondents

¶32

ORDER

¶33

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.333 of 2022, on the file of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bodhan,^wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.l to 3, for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'lPC') and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act,¹⁹⁵⁵

¶34

(for short'EC Act').

¶35

¶36

Heard Mr.A.Divakar Reddy, learned counr;el for the petitioners and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learnerJ Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1

¶37

The specific allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 3 is that they have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 14.09.2r)22 at about 13:30 hours, the petitioners were found in possession o,f 60 bags of PDS rice totalling 30.20 quintals.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioners would :iubmit that without there being any complaint from any benefilir.ry, alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging the petitioners for prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations, even taken at their face value cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Further, this court, in crl.p.Nos.5709 of 2019 and 3349 of 2015, while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the offences alleged against the petitioners therein could not be continued and accordingly quashed the proceedings. The petitioners are also entitled to the same relief and hencelrs}ed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶39

¶40

fIt

¶41

The learned^{AdditionalPublicProsecutor submits that as per} prosecution, the^{offencessaid to have been committedby the} petitioners is cheating^{and violation of Section 7 of the Ec Act and} reqrrested to^{pass appropriate orders'}

¶42

Section 7 of the^{EC Act contemplate that anyperson} contravenes^{with the production, supply,distributionand trade of} essential commodities,^{is punishable.As per the prosecution, the} petitioners have^{procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after} supply from^{the dealer.}

¶43

A Coordinate^{Bench of this court in crl.P.N o.7227 0f 2025}

¶44

has considered^{the identicat facts andobservedthat:}

¶45

"There is no averment^{indicating that the petitionerin any way} deceptively^{induced the beneficiariesto part with thesuppliedPDS rice} or the beneficiary^{entrustedthe PDS rice purchased by them with the} petitioner ind^{they dishonestly misappropriatedor converted to their} ownuseoruseditinviolationofatawfuldirectionorcontroct.Inthe absenceofessentialfactors,onthefaceofprosecution,thisCourtfinds it to be afit^{case to exercise rheiurisdictionundersection528 of BNSS'} 2023-Thus,continuanceofproceedingsagainstthepetitionetisabuse of^{process of law".}

¶46