Allowed

A1-Kanugula Naresh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Sept 2026CRLP/14512/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed a criminal petition under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 1461 of 2025. The petitioners were accused of procuring PDS rice at cheaper rates and possessing large quantities. Relying on identical facts in Crl.P. No. 7227 of 2025 and earlier precedents, the Court held that without evidence of fraudulent inducement or misappropriation, the continuation of proceedings amounted to an abuse of process and was fit only for exclusion.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C. No. 1461 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam, against petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby quashed.

A1-Kanugula Naresh Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | 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 TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETI TION NO: 14512 0F 2026

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . 41-Kanugula Naresh, S/o. Seetharamulu, age. 31 years, kumari, occ. business, r/o. komminepalli (v), kamepalli Mandal.

¶9

A2-Barigala Ramu, S/o. Rangaiah, age. 46 years, Munnurukapu, occ. lorry driver r/o. H.No.8-89/2, Ayyapa nagar, WC Jaggayyapeta (M), Krishna Dist.

¶10

A3- Uppala Vijay, S/o. Shoban, age.21 years, occ. lorry cleaner, r/o. H.No. 1-6-411281612 Sriramnagar, near Bhrahmin Nagar Thanda, Suryapeta.

¶11

...(Petitioners/Accused A1 to A3 in CC.No.1461/2025)

¶12

...Petitioners/Accused 41 to A3

¶13

AND

¶14

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

¶15

...(Complainant)

¶16

2 Ayyadevara Pavan Kumar, S/o. A.V.Ramkumar, age. 42 yearc, Civil supplies checking inspector, khammam rural rlo. Auto nagar, khammam rural (M), khammam Dist.

¶17

...(Defacto Complainant)

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

Petition under section 528 of B.N.s.s. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the impugned proceedings in C.C.No. 1461 of 2025, on the file of the principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial First Class [t/agistrate at Khammam.

¶20

r.A. NO: 30^{F 2026}

¶21

petition under section 52g^{of B.N.S.S. praying thatin the circumstances statedin} the Memorandum^{ot crouno"s"ot;;;i F"litioi' m" rrioh courtmav} of2025onthefile^{be pleased to} ,rrantinterimstayorder"tiit'ni"''pi"t""dingtinC^c:No1461 ;f the Principal^Junior "i"il';;l;;^{;;;l'uiciartitst-class} p"titLn"ttlnccused^{Masistrate Nos Al to at A3 Khammampending} rncluding^{appearance,"d} ''tt";;;;;'oi Oiipo.aiot^{tn" above Criminal petition'}

¶22

This^{petition coming on for hearing, upon perusingthe Memorandum of Grounds} of Criminal^{Petition and} 'p*^{;;;;;G;-1i1'T:"tt-of Sri AcharyuluRompicharla} Y.L.N, Advocate^{for the i'iiiii"*it"} '"0^{sti Jithender Rao Veeramalla'learned} Additional^{Public Prosecutoion-n"h'ffof the RespondentNo l and none appeared} for the^{ResPondent No 2}

¶23

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶24

¶25

INTHE HIGH COURT F RT STATE OFTELANGANA ATHYDERABAD

¶26

TIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶27

C AL PETITION No.14s 12 of2026

¶28

CNR No. : HBHC01056LS4ZO26

¶29

Date: 08.09.2026

¶30

Between:

¶31

Kanugula Naresh and two others

¶32

...Petitioners

¶33

AND

¶34

The State ofTelangana and another

¶35

...Respondents

¶36

ORDER

¶37

This Criminal petition has been filed by the petitioners

¶38

seeking to quash the proceedings=in c.c.No. 146r of 2025 onthe

¶39

file of the leamed^principal Junior Civil Judge_cum_Judicial First

¶40

Class Magistrate, Khammam.

¶41

Heard Mr.Acharyulu Rompicharla y.L.N., learned counsel

¶42

for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla. leamed

¶43

Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 .

¶44

The specific allegation against the petitioners/accused

¶45

Nos.l to 3 is that they have procured pDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sel the same for profit and on 29.03.2025, the petitioners were found in possession of 19g.30

¶46

quintals of PUS rice. \

¶47

tr-

¶48

¶49

Leamed counsel^{for the petitionerswould submitthat} without there^{beingany complaintfrom any benehciary'} alleging that^{the rice was procureddeceptively or with a criminal} intent and charging^{the petitionersfor prosecutionis untenable} and improper.^{'the allegations, even taken at their face value} carmot be sustained^{against the petitioners'Further,this Court' in} Cr1.P.No.5709^{of 2019, while consideringthe same situation'} categorically^{observed that the offences alleged againstthe} petitioners therein^{could not be continued and accordingly} quashed the proceedings.^{The petitionersare alsoentitledto the} same relief^{and hence prayed to quash the proceedings agailst} the petitioners.

¶50

The leamed^{Additional Public Prosecutorsubmits that as} per prosecution,^{the offencessaid to have been committed by the} petitioners is cheating^{and violationof Section7 of the EC Act} and requested^{to pass appropriate orders'}

¶51

Section 7 of^{the EC Act contemplatethat anyperson} contravenes u'ith the^{production, supply,distribution and trade} of essential commodities, is^{punishable.As per the prosecution,}

¶52

¶53

¶54

the petitioners have procured pDS rice from the beneficiaries

¶55

after supply from the dealer.

¶56

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

¶57

"Ihere is no qyerment ind.icating that the petitioner in any way deceptively induced the benef.ciaries to part with rhe supplied pDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the pDS rice purchased iy them with the petitioner and they dishonestly misappropriated or c()nverted to their o'vwt use or used it in violation ofa lawful direction or contract. In the absence of essentialfactors, on the face ofprosecution, this Court /inds it to be qft case to exercise thejurisdiction under Section 52g ofBNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance ofproceeiings against the petitioneris abuse of process of law' l

¶58

The facts and circumstaflces 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 52g of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein.

¶59

Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.146l of 2025 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam, against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 are

¶60

hereby quashed

¶61

¶62

Pending^{miscellaneousapplications, if any, shall stand}

¶63

closed

¶64

SD'. M.OSMAN^{ALI BAIG} ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

.----,...

//TRUE COPY/'

,, \Lt\

''' sEcrloN^oFFlcER

To, The Principal^{Junior Civil Judge cum JudicialFirst ClassMagistrate at} Khammam^{(With recordsif anY)anY)}

¶70

Khammam^{(With recordsif anY)anY)} The Station^{House Officer, ia"iepaff i Police Statron'.Khammam District'}

¶71

2 Two CCs^{to the PublicPr#;;"fi';;g;court tor the State of Telangana'at} Hvderabad [OUT]

¶72

Hvderabad [OUT]

¶73

4 6l: ff;^{i;;c'naryuluRompicharla Y L N' Advocate[oPUC]} 6 Two CD^CoPies

GNK/BA

HIGH^COURT

DATED:^08'09'2026

$E sTATE or
v
2o
5oIt 1ES$S
t
t D rs PA1

¶79

ORDER

¶80

CRLP.No.1451^{2 ot 2026}

¶81

ALLOWING THE^{CRIMINAL PETITION}

¶82

t}l.it:,
I t. 'lb
rb

A1-Kanugula Naresh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A1-Kanugula Naresh 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