Allowed

Mr. Sushil Sahni, v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Feb 2026CRLP/1218/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 3 in an FIR over alleged procurement of PDS rice from beneficiaries to sell for profit, sought quashing under Section 528 BNSS. Following a coordinate bench decision on identical facts, the court found no deceptive inducement or dishonest misappropriation and quashed the proceedings against them.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in FIR No.233 of 2025 of Madannapet Police Station against petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 quashed; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Mr. Sushil Sahni, Vs State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

.! t I i .i :: : i

¶2

[³³⁰³ ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 121 8 0F 2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

tVlr. Sushil sahni, S/o Shivji sahni,_age: 36 years, occu: Driver, R/o Rupati Buzrug, Samastpur, Rupauli, Bihar St5te-g481 32

¶10

sri [Vlirza lmraan Baig, s/o Late \Airza Raheem Ullah Baig, age. 36 years, occu: Business, R/o H.No.1z-8-246132, Bagh-E-Jh1ra,- yakutpura, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSEDl & 3

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

2- Sri. [Vlirza lmran. Baig Junioj Enquiry lnspector of Civil Supplies Department, lVlalakpet Circle Hyderabad,Tetangana State ph g70O23S1i'

¶15

RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COM PLAI NANT

¶16

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the l/lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased'to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 233 of 2025 on the file of the pS lVladannapet, Hyderabad District against the Petitioners/Accused 'l and 3.

¶17

l.A. NO: oF 2026

¶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 proceedings including the appearance of the Petitioner/Accused Crime No. 233 of 2025 on the file of the PS Madannapet, Hyderabad District pending disposal of the above criminal petition.

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Nlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C Vivekanand, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None appeared for Respondent no.2.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

IN THE HIGH COIIR T Er} R THF'S E OF TELANGANA AT HYDEBAEAD

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J,SREENIVAS RAO

¶23

-r CRTNIINAT, PE ION No.1218 of 20 21

¶24

Date: 03.02.2026

¶25

Between:

¶26

Sushil Sahni and another

¶27

.Petitioners

¶28

ANI)

¶29

The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, Fligh Courr, at Hyde'abad for the State of Telangana and another

¶30

...Respondents

¶31

ORDER

¶32

This criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.233 of 2025, on the file ol Madannapet Police Station, Hyderabad, wherein the petitioners ,vere arrayed as accused Nos.l and 3, for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) r:ad with 3(5) of the Bharati-va Nyaya Sanhith a, za23 (for short 'BNS') and Section 7 of the Essential cornmodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act').

¶33

¶34

¶35

2' Hearcl Mr'c'vivekanand' learned counsel tbr the^p'etitioners ancl Mr.M.Rarnachandra lteddy, iearned Additional Pubiic Prosecuti.r fbr respondent No.1

¶36

The specific ailegatior, against the petitioners/accused Nos.l and 3 is that they have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 15.10.2015 at about 06:00 hours, the petitioners \'ere tbund in possession of 40 bags of' PDS rice totalling 17.60 quintals.

¶37

Learned counsel for the pretitioners would submit that

¶38

without there being any complaint from any beneficiary, alieging that the rice was procured deceptively or r.vith a criminal intent and -charging the petitioners {br prosecutiott is untenable and improp.'r' The allegations, even taken at their face value cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Furl.her, this Court, in Crl.P.Nos.5709 of 2019 and 33493 of 2015, r,vhile considering the sanle situation, categorically observ'ed 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 hence pruy"OTo-iiash the lrroceeclings against the^petitioners.

¶39

¶40

\ (

¶41

l-he Iearned Additional Public Prosecutor submits^{thatas per}

¶42

prosecrrtion, the offences said to have been cornrnitted by^the petitiorrers is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the EC Act^and :equested to pass appropriate orders

¶43

Siection 7 of the EC Act conternplate that any^person contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of essentirrl commodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitiorrers have procured PDS rice frotn the beneticiaries after supply from the dealer.

¶44

i. r\ Coordinate Bench of this Courl in Crl.P.No.722l of 2025

¶45

has cor sidered the identical facts and observed that

¶46

¶47

"There is no aterrnent indicating thu the petitioner in unv v'av det:eptitely induced the beneficiaries to purt with the supplied PDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice^purchased by theru v,ith the pe;itiont'r and they dishonestly misapproprioted or converted to their oun use or used it in violation of a lavful direction or contract. In the ab.;ence of essential factors, on the -face o.f^prosecution, this Court Jinds it to be u fit case to exercise the^j uristliction untler Section i2B o/'BMS$ 20?3. I-hus, contirumnce of proceedings ogainst the petitioner is abuse of process of law".

¶48

l he lacts and circumstances of the present case also similar

¶49

to thos,: in the above case and hence, this Court finds it to be a fit

¶50

case to exercise^jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS by

¶51

¶52

applyirrg the same analog.u- and to^{qLrash the proceedings against} the petitioners hei'etn

¶53

Acr;o,clinglv, the Crimipal^{Petition is allowedand the} proceedings in FtR No.23i^{,,t'2025, on the frle of Madannallet} Police Station, Hydcrabad, against^{the petitioners/accrrsedNtls.l} and 3, are hereby^quashed

¶54

Pending tniscellaneous applications, if^{any, shall stand}

¶55

closed.

¶56

SD/. S.MALLIKAJUNA^RAO ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

ION OFFICER

1 The Vll Additional^{chief Metropolitan Magistrateat Nampally, Hyderabad'} 2 The Station^{House officer,[VladannapetPolice Station, HyderabadDistrict'} 3 Two ccs^{to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the stateof Telangana'at} Hyderabad [OUTI

¶62