Syed Zakiullah, Vs The State of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2026)

Syed Zakiullah, Vs The State of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The Criminal Petition is allowed; the proceedings in C.C.No.117 of 2021 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor, against the petitioner/accused, are hereby quashed; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.117 of 2021 (I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor) against the petitioner/accused — prosecuted for offences under Section 420 IPC, Section 7 of the EC Act 1955 and Section 17(e) of the Telangana State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, on the allegation that he procured PDS rice from beneficiaries for resale at profit and possessed 41 bags (17.30 quintals) of PDS rice on 09.03.2020 — should be quashed under Section 528 of BNSS.

Court's answer

Finding the facts and circumstances of the present case similar to those in Crl.P.No.72z7 of 2025 — where the coordinate Bench, on identical PDS-rice facts lacking any averment that the accused deceptively induced the beneficiaries or dishonestly misappropriated the supplied rice, had held continuance of proceedings to be an abuse of process — this Court found it a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS.

Ratio / Principle

Applying the same analogy as the coordinate Bench decision in Crl.P.No.72z7 of 2025, the Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS and directed quashing of the proceedings against the petitioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (J. Sreenivas Rao, J.), 03.02.2026 — Criminal Petition No. 1230 of 2026, Syed Zakiullah v. The State of Telangana and another: Petition under Section 528 of BNSS allowed and proceedings in C.C.No.117 of 2021 (I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor) quashed. Prosecution alleged that the petitioner procured PDS rice from beneficiaries at cheaper rates for resale at profit and was found on 09.03.2020 in possession of 41 plastic bags of PDS rice totalling 17.30 quintals; offences charged were under Section 420 IPC, Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 17(e) of the TSPDS (Control) Order, 2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no complaint from any beneficiary alleging deceptive procurement or criminal intent. Relying on a coordinate Bench decision of this Court in Crl.P.No.72z7 of 2025, which on identical facts — in the absence of averments of deceptive inducement of beneficiaries or dishonest misappropriation of the supplied PDS rice — had held continuance of proceedings to be an abuse of process, this Court found the facts and circumstances similar, applied the same analogy, exercised jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner/accused. Pending miscellaneous applications were closed. Counsel: G. Raghu for the petitioner; M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1; none appeared for respondent No. 2.

[³³⁰³ ]

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY^{OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYSIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEJ SREENIVAS RAO}

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:¹²³⁰ Of²⁰²⁶

Between

Syed Zakiullah,, S/o.^{Samiullah,Aged36. years,. Occ . Business, R/o. H-No.} ii Z, Errodigai[y, Bheemgal^{Village and ttlandaland Nizamabad District.} Pincode. 503307

... Petitioner/Accused

AND

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

Sri. D. Vasanth Rao,,^{S/o. Narsingh,Aged 46 years, Occ. Deputy Tahsildhar} (CS), Office of the Nizamabad District.^{Pincode. 503001'}

... ResPondenUComPlainant

petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the [Vlemorandum of^{Grounds of Criminal Petition,the HighCourt may be} pleased to quash the impugned^{proceedings in C.C.No.117 of 2021,on the file of} in" I Additional Judicial^{Magistrate of First Class at Armoor, against the} petitioner/Accused and pass such other order or orders may d6em fit and^proper in the circumstances^{of the case.}

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026

petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum^{of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be} pleased to grant interim stay of all^{further proceedings in C.C.No-1 17 of 2021, on} in" fit" of the I Additional^{Judicial [tlagistrateof First Classat Armoor., including} appearance and attendance^{of the Petitioner/Accused,pending disposal of the} ,boru Criminal^{petition and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and} proper in the circumstances of the^case.

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri GAJE RAGHU ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and None appeared for Respondent No.2

The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE ST TE qF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE J.SREENIVAS RAO

CRIMINAL PET ON No.1230 of 2026

Date: 03.02.2026.

Between:

Syed Zakiullah

...Petitioner

AND

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

.Respondents

ORDER

This criminal Petition has been fired seeking to quash the proceedings in c.c.No.lt7 of 2021, on the file of learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor, wherein the petitioner was anayed as accused, for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the tndian penal code, lg60 (for short^.Ipc,), Section 7 of the Essential commodities Act, 1955 (for short .EC Act') and section l7(e) of the Telangana state public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (for short^.TSPDSCO,).

2

Heard Mr.G.Raghu, learned counsel for the^{petitionerand} Mr.M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public^Prosecutor for respondent No.l

The specific allegation against the petitioner/accused is that he has procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 09.03.2020 at about I8:30 hours, the petitioner was found in possession of 4l plastic bags of PDS rice totalling I 7.30 quintals.

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 improper. The allegations, even taken at his face value cannot be sustained against the petitioner. Further, this Court, in Crl.P.No.5709 of 2019, 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 petitioner is also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

3

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 Section 7 of the EC Act and requested to pass appropriate orders.

Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate that any person 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.

7 - A coordinate Bench of this courr in crl.p.No.72z7 of 2025

has considered the identical facts and observed that:

"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 petitbner and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violution of u lawful direction or contract. In the absence of essential factors, on the face of prusecution, this court finds it to be afit case to exercise the jurisdiction under section 52g of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law".

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

4

applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.ll7 of 2021, on the file of learned I

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor, against the

petitioner/accused, are hereby quashed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

S.OT- B.REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

6

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The I Additional Judicial^{Magistrate of First class at Armoor.} 2. The Station House Officer,^{Bheemgal Police Station, NizamabadDist.} 3. One CC to SRI^{GAJE RAGHU, Advocate} [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public^{Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad} 5 Two CD Copies^lourl

SNT/PSL

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0310212026

ORDER

il-{E s
t
()
0 g rE8 202[

CRLP.No.1230 of 2026

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

Ks
l"l*