Allowed

Chenna Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Sept 2026CRLP/14488/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, the High Court of Telangana quashed proceedings against the petitioner accused of procuring PDS rice at a cheaper rate. Relying on a prior decision where identical facts resulted in a quashing order due to lack of essential factors like deception or dishonest misappropriation, the Court held the allegations unsustainable without beneficiary complaints.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C. No. 1676 of 2025 at Nizamabad against the petitioner/accused are quashed.

Chenna Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³³⁰³ J

¶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: 1&88^OF2026

¶7

BET\TUEEN:

¶8

Chenna Sriniyas, S/o. Kistaiah,^{Age. 48 years,Occ.Business,Rlo. 4-14,} Mittapally, Dichlally Mandal, Nizamabad^{District, TelanganaState.}

¶9

...Petitioner/Accused

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

M.Praveen Kumar, S/o. Vinay,^{Age.43 Years, Occ. Deputy Tahsildar,Rl/o.} Armoor, Nizamabad District, Telangana^State.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Petition under section 528 of^{B.N.S.S. prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the Memorandum of Grounds^{of criminal Petition, the High courtmay be pleased to} quash the proceedings in cc No. 1676 of 2025^{on the file of the V AdditionalJudicial} Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad^{against the petitioner/Accused.}

¶15

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026

¶16

Petition under section 528 of B.N.S.S.^{prayingthatin the circumstances statedin} the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal^{Petition, the High courtmay be pleased to} grant stay of all further proceedings against^{the petltioner/Accusedin cc No.1676 of} 1OZS onihe file of the V Additional^{Judicial Magistrateof FirstClass at Nizamabad} pending disposal of the main criminal^petition'

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing,^{upon perusingthe Memorandumof Grounds} of criminal Petition and upon hearing^{the arguments of sri G. Basappa, Advocatefor} the Petitioner and sri Jithender^{Rao Veeramalla, learned AdditionalPublic} Prosecutor on behalf of the^{RespondentNo 1 and noneappearedfor the} Respondent No.2.

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

IN THE HIGH C OURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENTVAS RAO

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14488 of2026

¶22

CNR No. : H8HC010607182026

Date:08.09.2026

Iletween:

Chenna Srinivas

..Petitioner

AND

'Ihe Statc of Telangana and another

¶29

...Respondents

¶30

ORDER

¶31

This Crin.rinal Petition has been filed by the

¶32

petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings ln C.C.No.1676 of 2025 on the file of the leamed V Additional

¶33

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Nizamabad

¶34

Heard Vr.G.Basappa, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public

¶35

Prosecutor lbr respondent No. L

¶36

The specific allegation against the petitioner/accused is that he has procure:d PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on r 0. r 0.2025, the petitioner was found in possession of i 0.40 quintals of pDS rice.

¶37

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without there being any complaint^{from any beneficiary, alleging} that the rice was^procured deceptively^{or witha criminalintentand} charging the petitioner for^{prosecutionis untenable and improper} The allegations, even taken at his face^{value cannot be sustained} against the petitioner. Further, this^{Court, in Cr1.P.No.5709 of} 20i9, while considering the same situation,^{categoricallyobserved} that the offences alleged against the^{petitioners thereincould not be} continued and accordingly^{quashedthe proceedings- The petitioner} is also entitled to the same relief^{and hence prayedto quash the} proceedings against the petitioner

¶39

The learned Additional Public^{Prosecutor submitsthat as per} prosecution, the offences said to have^{been committedby the} petitioner is cheating and violation of^{Section7 of the EC Actand} requested to pass appropriate orders.

¶40

Section 7 of the EC Act^{contemplate that any person} contravenes with the^{production, supply,distributionand trade of} essential commodities,^{is punishable. As per the prosecution,the} petitioner has procured PDS rice fiom^{the beneficiariesafter} supply from the dealer. ,/

¶41

¶42

A C'oordinate Bench of this Courl in Crl.p.No.722i of

¶43

2025 has c()nsidered the identical facts and observed that:

¶44

"There is no eyerment mdicating that the petitioner in any way deceptit::ll intluced the benefciaries to port witlt rhe supplied pDS rice or the beneficiun entrusted the PDS rice purchased b1, them h.irh the petttioner ond they dishonestly misoppropiated or converted to their ov,n Lt.\e or used it m violation of a lawful direction or (.ontract. In the abstnce ofessential /h.ctors, ctn the face ofprosecunon, this Courtfncls it to bt: tt fit cose to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 52g of BNSS, 202-1. Tttus, continuance of proceedings, againrr the petitioner is abuse of pt oL'e.:s of lau' .

¶45

The fircts and circumstances of the present case also similar

¶46

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

¶47

9 Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No. 1 67 6 of 2025 on the file of the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Nizamabad, against the petit ioner/accused, are hereby quashed.

¶48

To,

¶49

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand crosed. //r RUE RUE coPYco,.." tt^{*.B1;i;t#ifffH_;} 'rr\ ----"-"':\

¶50

¶51

4, ii#ffi iJltg**liffi^P:'Hi?''',-

HIGH COURT

DATED: 08/09/2026

ORDER

CRLP.No.14488 of 2026

¶56

€.
1 t{E STAT
q
vZn
d 1G $P u6
*
t oESPATC

¶57

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL^PETITION

¶58

I
@)
c1
1U

Chenna Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chenna Srinivas 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