Allowed

Rahul v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Sept 2026CRLP/13749/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed a criminal petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated against two accused persons. The petitioner alleged cheating and violation of the Essential Commodities Act involving PDS rice. The court found that no averment indicated deceptive procurement by the accused or dishonest misappropriation. Relying on precedent that such absence of essential factors makes proceedings an abuse of process, the court quashed the case under Section 528 of BNSS.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C.No.8O of 2021 on the file of the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor, against petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2, are quashed.

Rahul Vs The State of Telangana — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³³⁰³¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITI ON NO: 13749 OF 2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

Rahul, S/o. Shravan Kumar, Aged 35 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. Sakrahani Village, Amolar Mandal, Kannauj Diskict, Uttar pradesh. pincode. 2OgZ31.

¶9

Mohammad Abrarali, S/o. Baber Ali, aged 31 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 9-37135, Suresh Colony, Mbrthad Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District. Pincod e.503225

¶10

...Petitioners/Accused No. 1 and 2

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

Sri M. Srinivas, S/o. Narayana, Occ: Deputy Tahasildar (Enforcement), Armoor, Nizamabad District. pin.503224.

¶14

..Respondents/Complainant

¶15

Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of crlminal petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the impugned proceedings in c.c.No.BO of 2021 , on the file of the principal Judicial Magistrate of First class at Armoor, against the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2.

¶16

LA. NO: 2 OF 2026

¶17

Petition under section 52g of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be preased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings in c.c.No.g0 of 2021, on the file of the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First crass at Armoor., incruding appearance and

¶18

attendance of the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 pending disposal of the above Criminal petition.

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum^{of Grounds} of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments^{of Sri Gaje Raghu, Advocatefor} the Petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla,^{the Additional PublicProsecutor} on behalf of the Respondent No.¹ and^{noneappeared for the RespondentNo. 2.}

¶20

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶21

-f

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI)

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS^RAO

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION No.13749^{of 2026}

¶25

CNR No.HBH C0lO57 484202

Date:08.09.2026

Between:

Rahul and another

...Petitioners

AND

The State ofTelangana, and another

¶32

...Respondents

¶33

ORDER

¶34

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the

¶35

petitioners/accused Nos.l and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings

¶36

in C.C.No.S0 of 2021, on the file of the Principal Judicial

¶37

Magistrate of First Class at Armoor.

¶38

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

¶39

Prosecutor for respondent No. I .

¶40

The specific allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos.l

¶41

and 2 is that they have procured^pDS rice from tle beneficiaries at

¶42

¶43

¶44

cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 30. 10.2020, the petitioners u ere found in possession of 20.80 quintals ofPDS rice.

¶45

Learned coursel for the petitioners would submit that without 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} 2019, while considering the same situation,^{categoricallyobserved} that the offenccs alleged against the^{petitioners thereincouldnot be} continued antl accordingly^quashed the^{proceedings.The} petitioners are also entitled to^{the same relief and hence prayed tcr} quash the proceedings against^{the petitioners'}

¶46

The learned Additional^{PublicProsecutor submitsthat as per} prosecution, the^{offences said to have been committed by the} petitioners is cheating^{and violation of Section 7 of the Essential} Commodities^{Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act') and requested to pass} appropriate^orders.

¶47

Section^{7 of the EC Act contemplate that any person} contravenes^{rviththe production' supply' distributiona4d trade of}

¶48

¶49

¶50

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

¶51

supply from the dealer.

¶52

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

¶53

has considered the identical facts and observed that:

¶54

"There is no avermenl indicaling thal lhe pelilioner in any walt deceptively induced the benefciaries to pdrt^y,ith the supplied PDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice purchased by lhem with the petilioner and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their orvn use or used it in violation of a lawful direction or controct. In the ab,sence of essential factors, on the facb of prosecution, this Court finds il lo be afit case to ercrcise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of proces.s o1 law ".

¶55

The facts and circumstances of the present case also similar

¶56

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 petitioners herein

¶57

Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.8O of 2021, on the file of the principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor, against the petitioners/accused Nos. I and 2, are hereby quEhed.

¶58

¶59

¶60

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶61

closed

¶62

SO/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Principal .ludicial Magistrate of First Class^{at Armoor.}

¶67

The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Armoor

¶68

The Station House Officer, Balkonda Police^{Station, NizamabadDistrict.}

¶69

4 Two CCs to Pubhc Prosecutor, High Court^{for the State of Telangana,at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶70

One CC to Sri Gaje Raghu, Advocate IOPUC]

¶71

Two CD Copies

Sa,BA

+.*

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0810912026

ORDER

,(H 2.5IATE
')7
d 1$$P&
* aEsPAT ,

¶78

CRLP.No.13749^{ot 2026}

¶79

ALLOWING^{THE CRIMINAL PETITION}

¶80

f N rel a i:l

Rahul v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases