Allowed¶46

Mohammed Iqbal Ahmed v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Dec 2025CRLP/16463/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings; PDS rice procured from beneficiaries; 14 bags of PDS rice recovered 23.01.2019; Section 528 BNSS inherent jurisdiction; Section 7 Essential Commodities Act 1955; Section 42A IPC; abuse of process; analogy of Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025; Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate Bodhan; Nizamabad; Telangana High Court Criminal Petition No.16463 of 2025; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.240 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bodhan against the petitioner/accused quashed; pending miscellaneous applications closed. ¶46

Mohammed Iqbal Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

(

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶7

CRIM INAL PETITION NO: 16463 OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mohammed lqbal Ahmed, S/o. Abdul Khader, Age 41 years, Occ.Drivwer, Rl/o. H.No.9-76, lslampurgally, Kotagiri Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District,Telangana State.

¶10

...Petitioner/Accused

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

Machkuri Shanker, S/o. Babaiah, Age.42 Years, Occ.Mandal Revenue lnspector Bodhan Mandal Rl/o. H.No.9-'101/5/1 , Ethonda'Village, Kotagiri Mandal Nizamabad District,Telangana State.

¶14

...Respondent

¶15

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.240 oI 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kamareddy in so far as petitioner/Accused.

¶16

l.A. NO: 2OF 2025

¶17

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 proceedings against the petitioner/Accused in CC No. 24O ot 2019 on the file of the Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bodhan 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 ALLURI DIVAKAR REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and the S;ri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1, and none appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT F'OR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION No.16463 of 2025

Date: 11.12.2025

Between:

Mohammed lqbal Ahmed

...Petitioner

AND

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

¶29

Respondents

¶30

ORDER

¶31

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.240 of 2019, on the file of the learned Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bodhan, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as sole accused, for the offences punishable under Sections 42A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act').

¶32

Heard Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.v.Jithendar Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1

¶33

¶34

The specific allegation against the petitioner/iiccused is that he has procu.red PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 23.01.2019 at about 0 i:40 hours, the petitioner was found in possession of 14 bags of pDS rice.

¶35

4- Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without there being any complaint from any beneficiary, alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging the petitioner for prosecution is untenable and impropr:r. The allegations, even taken at his face value cannot be sustained against the petit iorrd.Further, this court, in crl.P.Nos.5709 of 2019 and 3349 of 2015, while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the offenr:es alleged against the petitioners therein could not be continued and accordingly quashed the proceedings. The petitioner is also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶36

The learned Additional Public prosecutor submits that as per prosecution, the offences said to have been committed by the petitioner is cheating and violation of Sectio n 7 of the EC Act and requested to pass appropriate orders.

¶37

¶38

Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate that any person

¶39

contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioner has procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer.

¶40

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

¶41

\ t U {

¶42

2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that:

¶43

"There is no averment indicating that the petitioner in any way deceptively induced the beneficiaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or the beneficiary entntsted the PDS rice purchased by them with the pgtitioner and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their awn use or used it in victlation of a lawful direction or contract. In the absence of essential factors, on the face of prosecution, this Courtfinds it to be afit case to exercise the jurisdicrion tmder Sectictn 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law".

¶44

The facts and circumstances of the present case also

¶45

similar to those in the above case and hence, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise^jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein.

¶46