Allowed

Abdul Rafeeq, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Sept 2026CRLP/13691/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS, the High Court of Telangana quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners accused of procuring PDS rice at cheaper rates. Finding that the allegations lacked essential factors such as deceptive inducement or dishonourable misappropriation, and relying on identical facts in a coordinate bench judgment, the Court held that the proceedings were untenable and an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 308 of 2021 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise at Nizamabad, against the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications stand closed.

Abdul Rafeeq, Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13691 OF 2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 . Abdul Rafeeq, S/o. Late Ghafoor, Aged 40 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. H.No. 7-8214, Nehru Nagar, Yedapally Mandal, Nrzamabad District. Pincode 503186.

¶9

Shaik Anwar, S/o. Zameet, Aged 46 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 7-124121A, Nehru Nagar, Yedapally Mandal, Nizamabad Diskict. pincode 503186.

¶10

,..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

¶13

2 SmL K Swetha, Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Malkoor, Nizamabad District. pincode 503213

¶14

.. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶15

Petition under Section .528-^{of BNSS,prayingthat in rhe circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of crimrnar i"titlon] inJ'nigh court may be preased to quash the impugned oroce.edings in c.c No.ioi" ii'zozl , on the fire of the speciar of First crasslExcisl at ,u;ri,r#oi,rnainst the petitioners/Accused i,:l"i.:H:"*te

¶16

t.A. NO: 20F 2026

¶17

Petition under section,482 of cr p cpraying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petii;;: ir,J'xigt, court may be preased to grant interim stav of ail furthsl pls6gg6insq l pro.L;jings in c.c. No. 30g of 2021 , on the fite of the speciat Judiciat t\i.;rsl;r;"J i;,Ii;;:::'L.ise at Nizamabro, ,.irjins

¶18

appearance and attendance of the Petitioners/ Accused Nos.^'l and 2, pending disposal of the above Criminal^petition.

¶19

This Petition conrng 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 for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of None appeared for Respondent no.2.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

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

¶22

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO}

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION No.13691^of2026

¶24

CNR No.HBHC0 10562822026

¶25

Date:08.09.2026

¶26

Between:

¶27

Abdul Raleeq and another

¶28

...Petitioners

¶29

AND

¶30

The State ofTelangana, and another

¶31

...Respondents

¶32

ORDER

¶33

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the

¶34

petitioners/accused Nos.l and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.308 of 2021, on the file of the Special Judicial

¶35

Magistrate of First Class, Excise at Nizamabad.

¶36

2 Heard Mr.G.Raghu, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional public

¶37

Prosecutor for respondent No. I .

¶38

The specific allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos.l

¶39

and 2 is that they have procured pDS rice from the bepeficiaries at

¶40

-r\

¶41

¶42

cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 1 L03.2020, the petitioners u,ere found in possession of 26.55 quintals of PDS rice.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that u,ithout there being any complaint from any beneficiary, alleging that the rice rvas 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.5709of} 201 9, while considering the same situation.^{categoricallyobserved} that the offences atleged against^{the petitionerstherein couldnot be} continued ancl accordingly^{quashedthe proceedings' The} petitioners are itlso entitled^{to the same relief and hence prayed to} quash the proceedings^{againstthe petitioners'}

¶44

The learred^{AdditionalPublicProsecutor submitsthat as per} prosecution,^{the offences said to have been committedby the} petitioners^{is cheating and violationof Section 7 of the Essential} Comnrodities^{Act, 1955(for short'ECAct') and requested to pass} appropriate^orders.

¶45

Section 7 ol^{the EC Act contemplate that any person} contr.rvenes^{rvith the production,supply' distribution-and trade of}

¶46

¶47

¶48

essential commodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after

¶49

supply from the dealer.

¶50

A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.p.No.7227 of 2025

¶51

has considered the identical facts and observed that:

¶52

"There is no averment indicatiryl that the petitioner in any wuy deceptively induced the benefciaries to p(rrt with the supplied pDS rice or the beneficiary entrueted the PDS rice purchased by rhem with rhe petitioner and they dishoneslly misapproprialed or conyerted to their own use or used it in violation of a lawful direction or contract. In the absence of essential factors, on the lacb o! prosecution, this Court finds it to be a fl cqse to exercise lhe jurisdiction under Section 52g of BNSS, 2023. Thus, conlinuance of proceedings against lhe petilioner is abuse ofprocess of law".

¶53

The facts and circumstances of the present case also similar

¶54

to those in the above case and hence, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 52g of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein.

¶55

Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.308 of 2021, on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise at Nizamabad, against the petitioners/accused Nos. I and 2, arc hereby quashgd.

¶56

¶57

-I

¶58

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any'^{shall stand}

¶59

closed.

¶60

SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY^REGISTRAR

¶61

//TRUE^COPY//

¶62