Allowed¶52

Solanki Krishna, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Feb 2026CRLP/1087/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court (2026) allows Criminal Petition No.1087 of 2026 and quashes C.C.No.191 of 2024 (JFCM Chennur) against two accused alleged of procuring PDS rice from beneficiaries for profit, found with 40 quintals of PDS rice on 20.03.2024; charges of cheating and Sections 7 & 8 Essential Commodities Act, 1955; Section 528 BNSS inherent jurisdiction invoked relying on Coordinate Bench decision Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025; no complaint from beneficiaries; continuance treated as abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.191 of 2024 pending before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate at Chennur against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stood closed. ¶52

Solanki Krishna, Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.191 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate at Chennur against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, who were charged with cheating and violation of Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 over alleged procurement of PDS rice, are liable to be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS.

¶34

Court's answer

Since the facts and circumstances of the present case are similar to those in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025, 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 petitioners herein.

¶50

Ratio / Principle

The Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.191 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate at Chennur, against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, are hereby quashed; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No.1087 of 2026 was allowed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, 02.02.2026), quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.191 of 2024 (Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Chennur) against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2. The petitioners were alleged to have procured PDS rice from beneficiaries at cheaper rates for resale and were found in possession of 40 quintals of PDS rice on 20.03.2024, facing charges of cheating and violation of Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Relying on a Coordinate Bench decision in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025 involving identical facts - where no averment showed deceptive inducement of beneficiaries or dishonest misappropriation of PDS rice - the Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, applied the same analogy, and quashed the proceedings as constituting abuse of process; pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

IUONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUST1CE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1087 OF 2026

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

1.'solanki Krishna, S/o. Anil Solanki, Age: 26 Years, Occ: Driver, R/o. 1-97, New Bus Stand, Chennur, Mancherial District-5O42O1.

¶10

Syed Faizan alias Syed Faizan Ali, S/o. Syed Zafar Ali, Age. 25 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. 13-16, Bank Street, Chennur, Mancherial District-S04201.

¶11

..Petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad through S H O , P.S. Jaipur, Mancherial Distric

¶14

..Respondent

¶15

G. Nagaraju, S/o. Unknown, Age: Unknown, Occ: Sl of Police, R/o. Jaipur, Mancherial District

¶16

... RespondenUDe facto Complainant

¶17

Petition under Section 528 of the BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the [vlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to C.C. No.191 OF 2024 on the file of the Judicial FirstClass Magistrate at Chennur against the Petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 and quash the same

¶18

l.A. No. 1 OF 2026

¶19

Petition under Section 528 of the 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 in C.C. No.191 OF 2024 on the file of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate at Chennur including appearance of the Petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 till the disposal of the Criminal Petition in the interest of the^justice

¶20

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Anuganti Praneeth, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

IN THE HIGH COTIRT F'OR sTATE, OF TEI,ANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS^RAO

¶24

CRIMINAL PB ON No.1087 of 2026

¶25

Date:02.02.2026

¶26

Between:

¶27

Solanki Krishna and another

¶28

.Petitioners

¶29

AND

¶30

The State of Telangana through Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad through SHO P.S, Jaipur, Mancherial District and another.

¶31

Respondents

¶32

ORDER

¶33

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused

¶34

Nos.l and 2 seeking to quash the^proceedings in C.C.No.191 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial First-Class Magistrate at

¶35

Chennur.

¶36

Heard. Sri Anuganti Praneeth, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy,^{learned Additional} Public Prosecutor for^{respondent No.1.}

¶37

The specific altegation^{against the petitioners/accusedNos.l}

¶38

and 2is that they^{have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at}

¶39

¶40

cheaper rate to sell the same for prof,rt and on 20.03.2024, the petitioners were found in possession of 40 quintals of PDS rice.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that without there being any complaint ttom any beneficiary, 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.No.5709 of 2019 and 3349 of 2015 while considering rhe same situation, categorically observed that the offences alleged against the petitioners therein cannot be continued and quashed the proceedings. The petitioners are also entitled to the same ielief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶42

'fhe learned Additional public prosecutor submits that as per prosecution, the offence said to have been committed by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Sections 7 and g of the Essential commodities Act, I955 and requested to pass appropriate orders.

¶43

6- Section 7 and 8 of the Essential commodities Act contemplate that any person conrravenes with l!:p:ggrctiqe

¶44

¶45

¶46

supply, distribution and trade of^{essentialcommodities or} abetment in this regard, is^{punishable. As per the prosecution,} the petitioners have procured^{PDS rice from the beneficiaries} after supply from the dealer

¶47

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

¶48

2025 has considered the identical facts and observed^that:

¶49

"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 entrusted the PDS rice^purchased by them with the petitioner and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violation of a lawful direction or contract. In the absence of essential factors, on the face of prosecution, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise the^jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023- Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law".

¶50

The facts and circumstances of the present case also 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

¶51

proceedings against the^petitioners herein.

¶52

g. Accordingly-, the Criminal^{Petition is allowed and the} proceedings in C.C.No.191 of^{2024 on the file of the learned}

¶53

I ,i i

¶54

¶55

Judicial First-class Magistrate at chennur, against the

¶56

petitioners/accused Nos.l and2, are hereby quashed.

¶57