Allowed

Yarra Veerababu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Sept 2026CRLP/14497/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Petition seeking to quash proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. The petitioners, accused of procuring PDS rice to sell at a profit, argued lack of criminal intent. Citing precedents where similar PDS cases were quashed due to absence of deceptive inducement or dishonest misappropriation, the Court found the prosecution tenable only if essential factors like deception were alleged. Finding none, the Court exercised jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C. No. 125 of 2021 against the petitioners/accused Nos. 3 and 4 were quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

Yarra Veerababu Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH^{DAY OF SEPTEIVBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{J SREENIVAS RAO}

¶6

CRIMINAL PETI TION NO:^{14497OF 2026}

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 Yarra Veerababu, S/o. Nageswararao @^{NageswarRao,Age.43Years, Occ'} Business, R/o. Banapuram^{Village, Mudigonda ItIandal, Khammam Districl'}

¶9

2 Athmakuri Upendar, S/ o. Srinivasarao @^{Srinivas Rao, Age 41 Years, Occ'} Business, R/o. Banapuram^{Village, triudigonda/andal' KhammamaDistrict'}

¶10

... Petitio ne rs/*c used No.3^{and 4}

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, through^S.H.O.P.S lvludigonda, Khammam^Police Comm issionerate, Represented^{by Public} Prosecutor, High Court^at Hyderabad

¶13

...Respondent^No.1

¶14

Alasyam Madhusudhan^{Rao, S/o. Veeraiah, Age} 56 Years, Occ. Checking lnspector (C.S.), Mudigonda^{Area, Khammam.}

¶15

...Respondent No.2/Defacto-Com^{p la ina nt}

¶16

Petitron under section 528^{of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances statedIn} the Memorandum of Grounds^{of criminal Petition, the High courtmay be pleased to} quash the charge sheet in c c No^{125 of 2021} ,^{on the file of ll Additional Junior} iiuil Jrdge-cum-ll Additional^{Judicial1,4agistrateof First Class at Khammam}

¶17

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026

¶18

Petition under Section 528^{of B.N.S.S. prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the lr/emorandum of Grounds^{of criminal Petition,the High courtmay be pleased to} stay of all further^{proceedings including personal appearanceof the petitionersin} C.i 1o 125 of 2021,^{on the fite of ll Additional Junior CivilJudge-cum-ll Additional} Judicial l/agistrate of Flrst^{Class at Khammam.}

¶19

Thjs Petition corrrng on for hearing upon perusing the Memorandr-tm of Grounds of Crjminal Petitron :rnd upon heartng the arguments of Sri Kandhikatla Sai^Krishna, Advocatc for the Pe':tttoners and Sri Jithender Rao^{Veerarnalla. learned Addit onal} Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No 1 and none appeared^for the Responclent No 2.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

a-----7

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELAN^GANA AT HYDERABAD

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{J.SREENIVAS RAO}

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14497 of²⁰²⁶

¶25

CNR No. : HBlrcolo6o9122o26

¶26

Date: 08.09.2026

¶27

Between:

¶28

Yarra Veerababu and another

¶29

...Petitioners

¶30

AND

¶31

The State of Telangana and another

¶32

...Respondents

¶33

ORDER

¶34

This Criminal Petition has been filed by^{the petitioners}

¶35

seeking to^quash the^{proceedingsih C.C.No. 12 5 of 2021 on the fiie} of the leamed II Additional^{Junior Civil judge-cum-IlAdditional}

¶36

Judicial Magistrate of First^{Class at Khammam}

¶37

Heard Mr.Kandhikatla Sai^{Krishna,Ieamed counsel for the} petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla,^{leamedAdditional} Public Prosecutor for respondent^No.l.

¶38

The specific allegation against the^{petitioners/accused Nos.3} arrd 4 are that they have^{procuredPDSrice fromthe beneficiaries} at cheaper rate to sell the same^{for profit and on 02.10.2020, the} petitioners were found in possession of^{168.20quintals of PDS} 11ce.

¶39

¶40

Learned counsel for the peiitioners would submit that u'ithout there being an;- complaint from an1, beneficiary, alleging that the ricc u,as procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging the petitioncrs for prosecution is untenable and improper. fhe allegations, e'n'en taken at their face value cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Further, this Cour1, in Crl.P.No.5709 of 20i9, rvhile considering the same situation, categorically observed that the ofl'enccs alleged against the petitioners therein could not be continued and accordingly qudshed the proceedings. The petitioners are also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proccedings against the pdtitioners

¶41

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per plosecution. the otlences said to have been committed by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Section 7 of'the EC Act and requested to pass appropriate orders

¶42

Scction⁷ of the EC Act contemplate that any person contravenes u'ith the production, supply, distribution and trade of essentral conrmodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after suppll. lronr rhe riealer.

¶43

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

¶44

has considered the identical facts and observed that

¶45

"There is no avermenl 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 petitioner and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violation of a lawful direction or contracL In the absence of essential factors, on the face of prosec tion, lhis Court finds it to be a ft case to etercise the^jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continudnce of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law".

¶46

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 appl),lng the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein.

¶47

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.125 of 2021 on the file of the leamed II Additional Junior Civil judge-cum-Il Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Khammam, against the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4, are hereby quashed.

¶48

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶49

closed.

¶50

sol- ru.osrvrnN^{ALI BAIG} ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶51

/iTRUE COPY//
<br>\ S TION OFFICER

¶52

To, 1 The f irtt ll Cfr.. Addrtional^{at Khammam(With records if Junior Crvil Judgecum any)ll.Addrtio:\l} J ud icial N/lagistrate^of

¶53

The Station House Officer.^{I/udigonda Police Station,Khammam District} 3 Twc CCs to the Public^{Prosecutor, High Courtfor the State of Telangana, at}

¶54

Hyderabact [OlL.lT]

¶55

1. One CC to Sri Kandhikatla Sai^{Krishna, Advocate} [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copie;

a', - GNKtba V

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0810912026

ORDER

1 t\g 5T416:
t vZ
o-) zffi 6)
1E STP .b
L)
*
q
:.
t Drspfi

¶61

CRLP.No.'14497 of 2Q26

¶62

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL^PETITION

¶63

,iq't"

¶64

1 /.: \6^c.l)r'

Yarra Veerababu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yarra Veerababu 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