Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Sirigiri Moses, Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2026)

Home
Telangana HC
2026
Sirigiri Moses, Vs The State of TelanganaSirigiri Moses, v. The State of Telangana

Allowed

Sirigiri Moses, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Sept 2026CRLP/14564/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge Criminal Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was filed by three accused individuals seeking to quash criminal proceedings instituted against them concerning alleged irregularities in the Public Distribution System (PDS). The High Court, relying on the reasoning of a coordinate bench in a similar fact situation (Crl.P.No.7221 of 2025) and a previous decision (Cr1.P.No.5709 of 2019), held that the allegations did not establish the necessary ingredients of cheating. The Court found the allowance minority observation citation omission to be a fit case to exercise its jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C.No.666 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karimnagar, against accused nos. 1 to 3, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The proceedings in C.C.No.666 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karimnagar, against accused nos. 1 to 3, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners accused of procuring PDS rice at a cheaper rate to sell for profit can be quashed under Section 528 of BNSS given the absence of a specific allegation of deception or criminal intent by the beneficiaries. +1 more

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

In proceedings concerning alleged irregularities in Public Distribution System (PDS) operations where petitioner-accused are said to have procured rice at cheaper rates to sell for profit, the court may quash criminal charges if there is no specific averment that the beneficiaries were deceptively induced to part with the rice or that the rice was misappropriated. Relying on a coordinate bench decision (Crl.P.No.7221 of 2025) and the principle from Cr1.P.No.5709 of 2019, this Court held that in the absence of essential factors indicating criminal intent or deceptive practice by the beneficiaries, the continuation of proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of law. The allegations, even taken at their face value, could not sustain prosecution under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Consequently, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the criminal proceedings against the petitioners were quashed as it was a fit case to do so.

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

A

[³³⁰³ ]

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

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

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEJ SREENIVAS RAO}

CRIMINAL PETITION^{NO: 14564 OF 2026}

Between:

Sirigiri [,4oses,, S/o^{Rajamallu, Age 26 years, Occ Business R/oRekurthy} Village, Kothapally^{[r/landal,KarimnagarDistrict}

Putta Vijendar,,^{S/o Raghupathi,Age 34 years,OccDriver, R/o Koppula} Viliage, Shayampeta^{t\Iandal, Hanamkonda District, TelanganaState}

Yellanki Viran Kumar,,^{S/o Bhadraiah,Age 52 years,Occ Driver, R/o Koppula} Village, Shayampeta^{trrlandal,HanamkondaDistrict,Telangana State'}

' ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO'1 to³

AND

l.TheStateofTelangana,,Rep.bythePublicProsecutor,HighCourt'at Hyderabad for the State^{of Telangan-a.}

D Usha,, D/o.^{Ananta Reddy,Age 40 years, Occ Dy Tahsildar (DCSO)' R/o'} Karimnagar Town^{and District.}

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS

Petition under Section^{528 of BNSS prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the lVlemorandum of^{Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleasedto} qr".n tr," proceedings in cc^{No. 666 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Judicial} It/agistrate First Clasi^{at Karimnagar in so far as petitioners/Accused1 to 3}

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026

Petition under section^{528 of BNSS prayingthat in the circumstancesstated rn} the lVlemorandum of^{Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to} grant stay of all further^{proceedings againstthe Petitioners/ Accused No 1 to 3 in} 6c No. aaa ot^{zozs on the file of tnL erincipat Judiciall,4agistrate First Classat} Karimnagar for^{pending disposalof the main criminalpetition}

This Petition coming^{on for hearing, upon perusing the IVemorandum of Grounds} of Criminal Petition^{and upon hearing the argumentsof Sri G BASAPPA' Advocate} for the Petitioner and^{sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla,the Addl.Public Prosecutoron} behalfoftheRespondentNo.landnoleappearedonbehalfoftheRespondent No 2.

The Court made the following:^ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14564 of 2026 CNR.No.HBH C010611192026 Date:08.09.2026

Between:

Srigiri Moses and two others

.Petitioners

AND

The State of Ti:langana, and another

.Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Petition " has been filed by the

petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings

in C.C.No.666 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Judicial

Magistrate First Class, at Karimnagar.

Heard N4r.G.Basappa, leamed counsei for the petitioners

and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for respondents

The specific allegation against the petitioners is that they

have procured^pDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to

2

-r

sell the same for profit and oL 06.10.2024, the petitioners were found in possession of 130 quintals of PDS rice.

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 Cr1.P.No.5709 of 2019, while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the -offences alleged against the petitioners therein could not be continued and accordilgly quashed the proceedings. The petitioners are also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

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 Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act') and requested to pass appropriate orders.

3

Section 7 of the^{EC Act contemplatethat anyperson} contravenes u'ith^{the production, supply, distributionand trade} of essential commodities,^{is punishable'As per the prosecution,} the petitioners have^{procured PDS rice from the benehciaries} after supply from^{the dealer.}

l. A Coordinate Bench of^{this Court in Crl'P.No.7221of}

2025 has considered^{the identicalfacts and observedthat}

"There is na averment indicrting thdt the petitioner in^{any way} deceptnely inducetl^{thebeneficiariesto part'with the supplied PDSrice} or the beneficiarl^{entrusted the PDS rice purchased by them with the} petilioner untl they dishonestly^{misappropriatedor converted to their} own use or used it^{in violQtion of a lcrwful direction or contract ln the} absence of essential .factors,^onthe face^{ofprosecution,thi,sCourt finds} it to be afil case to exercise^{thejurisdictionunder Section 528ofBNSS'} 2023. Thus, continuance^{ttf proceedings dgainstthe petitiL)neris Qbuse} ofprocess of law".

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 frt case to exercise^{jurisdictionunder Section 528 of} BNSS by applying the^same analogy and to^quashthe proceedings against the^petitioners herein.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings rn C.C.No.666 of 2025 on the file of the principal

.EI

4

Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Karimnagar, against the

petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3, are hereby quashed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed

SD/. T. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY'

ECTION OFFICER

To,

The Judicial [,4agistrate of First Class, Karimnagar

The Station House Officer, Police Station Choppadandi, Karimnagar District

Two CCs to PUBLiC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

One CC to SRI G BASAPPA Advocate [OPUC]

Two CD Copies

TPKiGNK

HIGH COURT

DATED: 08/09/2026

ORDER

CRLP.No.14564 of²⁰²⁶

1 \rE STATf

7
g 1E si zr?t
*
t D

CRIMINAL PETITION IS^ALLOWED

4c.1i,s

i6^eq

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners accused of procuring PDS rice at a cheaper rate to sell for profit can be quashed under Section 528 of BNSS given the absence of a specific allegation of deception or criminal intent by the beneficiaries.
2.
Whether the facts of the present case are analogous to a coordinate bench's finding in Crl.P.No.7221 of 2025 where proceedings were quashed for being a fit case under Section 528 of BNSS.

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

Cr1.P.No.5709 of 2019Relied on¶39
Crl.P.No.7221 of 2025Applied¶47

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita528
Essential Commodities Act7

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Sirigiri Moses
petitioner
Putta Vijendar
petitioner
Yellanki Viran Kumar
respondent
State of Telangana
respondent
D Usha

Coram

AI extract

J SREENIVAS RAO

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Telangana HC
Decided on: 8 Sept 2026 · September
Registered: 7 Sept 2026
Case no.: CRLP/14564/2026
CNR: HBHC010611192026
Topic: Quashing and FIR
Disposal: ALLOWED NO COSTS

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

Cite this judgement

Sirigiri Moses, v. The State of Telangana, CRLP/14564/2026 (TEL), decided on 8 September 2026.

The High Court for the State of Telangana publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited2

Cr1.P.No.5709 of 2019Relied on¶39
Crl.P.No.7221 of 2025Applied¶47

Open Authorities

Statutes2

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita528
Essential Commodities Act7

View all statutes

Bench / Coram

J SREENIVAS RAO

Parties & counsel