Allowed

Dobbala Ravi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Sept 2026CRLP/14503/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 1812 of 2024 against three accused alleged of cheating regarding PDS rice. The court found that without evidence of deceptive procurement or criminal intent, quashing proceedings was appropriate, drawing analogy from prior judgments with identical facts.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C. No. 1812 of 2024 against the petitioners/acused Nos. 1 to 3 are quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are closed.

Dobbala Ravi Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{J SREENIVASRAO}

¶6

CRIMINAL PETI TION^{NO: 14503OF 2026}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dobbala Ravi, S/o. Pochaiah,^{Age. 32 years, Occ Driver'R/oH.No.4-7214,} Rajaramnagar, Ghnapur, Dichipally^{[\r]andal Nizamabad District, Telangana} State.

¶9

Shaik Tazoddin, S/o. Shamshouddin,^{Age. 41 yearc, Occ Business'R/o.} H.No 6-1 18/1 , Dichipally Village and^{[,4andal,Nizamabad District, Telangana} State.

¶10

Sangem @ Asadi Jithendhar, S/o.Satyanandham,^{Age. 41 years,Occ} Business, R/o. H.No. 3-12313, Dichipally^{Villageand Mandai, Nizamabad} District. Telangana State

¶11

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.^'1 to³

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

Akula [t/lahesh, S/o. Gangadhar, Age.49years, Occ.^{URDI lnspector, R/o.} Vinayaka Nagar, Nizamabad Town and District, Telangana State.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the l\ilemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the^{High Court may be pleasedto} quash the proceedings in CC No. 1812 of 2024 on the file of the V Additional Judicial Ivlagistrate of First Class at Nizamabad in so far as^petitioners / Accused No.^'1 to^3.

¶17

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026

¶18

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that tn the circumstances stated^tn the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court^may be^pleasedto grant stay of all further proceedings against the petitioners i Accused No.1 to 3 in CC No. 1812 of 2024 on the file of the V Additional Judicial^lvlagistrate of^First Class at Nizamabad pendrng disposal of the main criminal^petition.

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^{pen-rsingtheI,4emorandumof} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing^{the arguments} of Sri^ALLURI DIVAKAR REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner^{and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla,} the Addl Public Prosecutor on behalf of^{the RespondentNo.1 and none appeared} on behalf of the Respondent No.2

¶20

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶21

IN THE HIGH C OURT FOR THE STATE OT'TELA\GA.\A AT HYDERABAD

¶22

THE HONOUR,\BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SRIENIVAS RAO

¶23

CRIMINAL PETI'IION No.14503 ol 2026

¶24

CNII No. : H8HC010607082026

¶25

Date: 08.09.2026

¶26

Between:

¶27

Dobbala Ravi and two others

¶28

Petitioners

¶29

AND -[he State o1'1 elangana and another

¶30

...Respondents

¶31

ORDER

¶32

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners

¶33

seeking to qursh the proceedings in C.C.No.1812 of 2024 on lhe

¶34

file of the lcarned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad

¶35

Heard Nlr.Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Ieamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1

¶36

3 I'he specific allegation against the petitioners,'accused Nos.1 to i is that thev have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at clreaper rate to se ll the same for profit and on 25.09.2024,, lhe petitioners wcre lbund in possession of 7 .73 quintals of pDS rice

¶37

Learncd counsel for the petitioners would submit that without there i;:in-u an1.. complaint from any beneliciary, alleging

¶38

lIE-

¶39

¶40

that the rice was procured deceptively or with a^criminal intent and charging the petitioners for^{prosecutionis untenableand} improper. The allegations, even taken at their^{face value cannot be} 1n sustained against the petitioners. Further, this^Court, Cr1.P.No.5709 of 2019, while considering the^{samesituation,} categorically observed that the offences aileged 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.

¶41

The leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per prosecution, the offences 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

Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer.

¶43

A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that:

¶44

.) J

¶45

''Thtre it no qvctment indicqting thqt the petitiotler in any ,rqy leceptive 1.., mduced tha beneficiories to pqrt v'ith the supplied pDS rice rtr thr beneliciarv rntntste(l the PDS rice purchcrsetl by them .,eith the petttt()ner tnl thet dishonestly misoppropriated or conyerted to their own rtse or u.scd it in riolation of a lawful direction or contract. [n tlxe ubsetrce ol es.tentiol far.tors, on the face of prosecation. tllis Court finds it to he o-tir ut.se to exercisc the lurisdictton under Section 528 ofBNSS, )023 Thrs, ct)ninuance ol proceedings against the p('titioner is qbuse of proces: oJ' lrtv

¶46

8 The facts and ctrcumstances of the present case also similar

¶47

to those in the above case and hence, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exelcise^jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against thc petitioners hcrein.

¶48

Accordingly. the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.18l2 of 2024 on the fi1e of the learned V -{dditional Judicial N,Iagistrate of First Class at Nizamabad, against the petitionersl accu sed Nos.1 to 3, are hereby quashed.

¶49

Pending miscellaneous applications, i1' any, shall stand

¶50

closed

¶51

SD/- P.C.SULEKHA^DEVI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

,TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The V Addrtronai Judrcial [/iagistrate of First Class at Nizamabad

¶56

2 The station ,ouse offrcer porrce station rndarwai. Nizarnabad District 3 Tvyo ccs to puBLlc pRosECUTOR High court for the state of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶57