Allowed

Rafeeq Ahmed v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Sept 2026CRLP/14313/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed FIR No. 100 of 2026 registered at Zaheerabad Rural Police Station against two petitioners accused of procuring PDS rice from beneficiaries to sell for profit. The court held that the prosecution failed to allege any deception or criminal intent, and that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process. The court relied on a coordinate bench decision in Cr1.P.No.1227 of 2025 involving identical facts.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in FIR No. 100 of 2026 at Zaheerabad Rural Police Station, Sangareddy, against petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Rafeeq Ahmed Vs State of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | 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: 14313 OF 2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

Rafeeq Ahmed, S/o Akbar Miyan, aged about 39 years, occupation, Lorry Driver, R/o H No.111104'l134/5, MSK Mill Road, Madina Colony, Jeelanabad, Nera Green Circle, Gulbarga, Karnataka - 585103

¶9

Abdul Raheem, S/o Ahmed Saab, aged about 39 years, occupation. Owner of Vehicle H.No.1'1-'10411341J143, opposite Chaddi, Hotel MSK Mill, Jeelanabad, Gulbarga - 585103

¶10

...Petitioners/Accused 1,2.

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

Sri.Goudigama Baswaraj, s/o Ramshetty, Age: 57 yrs, Occ: Deputy Thahsilda(CS) Zaheerabad,

¶14

R/o. Kamkole(v),Munipally mandal, Sangareddy.

¶15

...RespondenUDefacto Complainant

¶16

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimrnal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in Crime.No.100 of 2026 on the file of PS Zaheerabad rural, District Sangareddy, against the Petitioners/Accused.

¶17

l.A. NO: 2 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 petitioners/ accused in Crime.No.101 of 2026 on the file of PS Zaheerabad rural, District Sangareddy, 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 Mr. C. Vivekanand, Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶22

THE HONOUR{BI,E SRI JUSTICE J.SRBENIVAS RAO

¶23

CRIMIn-AL PETITION No.14313 of 2 026

¶24

CNR No.HBHC0105951 12026

¶25

Date:08.09.2026

¶26

Betrveen

¶27

Rafeeq Ahmed and another

¶28

..Petitioners

¶29

AND

¶30

The State of^'l'clangana. and another

¶31

...Respondents

¶32

ORDER

¶33

'this Cnminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the

¶34

proceedings in FIR No.100 of 2026 on the file of the Zaheerabad Rural Police Station, Sangareddy, wherein the pctitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.l and 2, for the ol'fences punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Section 7 o1'the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short'EC Act')

¶35

I{eard Mr.C.Vivekanand, learaed counsel for -he petitioners and Mr.Jithe,der Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional public Prosecutor lbr respondent \o.1.

¶36

¶37

The speciflc allegation against the petitioners/accused^Nos.l and 2 is that they have^procured PDS^{rice from} the^{beneficiariesat} cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on^{25.08.2026, the} petitioners were found in possession of 238.00 quintals of PDS nce

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 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, while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the offences alieged against the petitioners therein could not be continued and accordingly quashed the proceedings. The petitioners are also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶39

The leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per

¶40

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.

¶41

¶42

Section 7 ol the EC Act contemplate lhat any person contravenes rvith the production, supply, distribution and trade of essential conrmod ities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioners havc procurcd PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer

¶43

7 . A C oordinate Bench of this Court in Cr1.P.No.1227 of 2025

¶44

has considered the identical facts and observed that

¶45

"l'hert is no arernrent indicdting that the petitioner in any wuy decepuvclt inclutcd the beneficiaries to pdrt with the supplied PDS rice or the be'ne'fictarl etlhl\ted the PDS rice purchased by tnem with the petitioner tnd tht'y ,lishone.stly misappropriated or converted to their o\'n ule or u.yed it itt wolation of a lawful direc'tion or contract. In the eb.sen(, ,tf e.ssential litctors, on lhe .face of prosecution, thi::^(s11y7 fin75 it to be a /it cose tt) e.terLise the^jurisdiction under Section :;28 of BNSS, 2423 thus contirutdnL( of prctceedings agdinst the petitianer is abuse of proct:ss r-,1' lat

¶46

l'he facts and circumstances of the present case also similar

¶47

to those in the above case and hence. this Court frnds it to be a fit casc to exercise^jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein.

¶48

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allcwed and the proceedings in FII{ No.100 of 2026 on the file of the Zaheerabad Rural Police Stati.n, Sangareddy, against the petitioners/accused Nos. i and 2. are hereby cluashed.

¶49

¶50

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶51

closed.

¶52

SD/- MOHD.lSMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶53

//TRUE COPY//

¶54

CTION OFFICER

¶55