Allowed

Motam Ganesh, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Sept 2026CRLP/14574/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed a Criminal Petition filed by Motam Ganesh seeking to quash proceedings in FIR No. 145 of 2026. The petitioner was accused of procuring Public Distribution System (PDS) rice to sell for profit, allegedly violating Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Relying on coordinate and previous judgments which held that such allegations require specific essential factors like deceptive influence or misappropriation to sustain, the Court found no such disclosure on the face of prosecution. Consequently, the Court held the continuation of proceedings to be an abuse of process and quashed the FIR.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in FIR No. 145 of 2026 against the petitioner are quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are closed.

Motam Ganesh, Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³³⁰³¹

¶2

IN THE^{HIGH COURTFORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY,^{THE EIGHTHDAYOF SEPTEMBER} "--i,v'o THoUSAND AND TWENry SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTIGE J SREENIVAS RAO}

¶6

GRTMIN ALP^{ETITION NO:14574 0F 2026}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Motam^{Ganesh, S/o. Rajaiah,Age- 21-Yea$,occ- Driver, R/o. Manakondur} iiilU aii^{il;no"t, rati'nugar District' TelanganaState}

¶9

...Petitioner/Sole^Accused

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State^{of Telangana, Rep by the Public Prosecutor' HighCourt'at} Hyderabad^{for the State of Telangana'}

¶12

2 Through^{State Police.fg J"gu;";tk'ar)'Age- 47 Years'occ- Sub lnspector} of Police,^{Rl/o. Karimnagat i"on a Mandal Karimnagar District}

¶13

...ResPondents

¶14

Petition^{under Section 528 of B N S S praying that in the circumstances statedin} the Memorandum^{ot crounal lt c;il;iF"tir:ti the,Hiohcourt} No 145^{mav be pleased toof 2026 on the} ouash^{the proceedings} 'g'it"t;i#;;iiiiono'lAt"""d,in-FlR ;;";#Ji6-i"ti'inrgiirri^{town p s Karimnasar District}

¶15

l.A. NO:2^oF2026

¶16

Petition^{under Section 528 of B N S S' qqyinO tla] in the circumstances statedin} the Memorandum^{ot c'ouno"slt;;il;;iFetitioithe Hioh courtmav be pleased to} 9t1T,",:,t;:1i,:,$fl^{:t#A:?t;ru:it+*'l"l"'JA" ru',:i;:#I##"1":l} p".ii.g'Olp""al^{of the main criminalpetition}

¶17

This^{petition coming on for hearing, uponperusing,the Memorandumof Grounds} of criminat^{petitionand ,;;d;i;;"ihJrrgrr"nt. or sri G BasappaAdvocatefor} the^{Petitioner and Sri iii#;il;"R'o' V"""'"lla' learned AdditionalPublic} i;;;t;J;;^{on behalf of the ResPondents'}

¶18

The Court^{madethe following:ORDER}

¶19

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶21

.THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITI ON No.14574 of 2026

¶23

CNR.No. HBHC010611 152026 Date:08.09.2026

Between

Motam Ganesh

Petitioner

AND

The State of l'elangana, and another

¶29

.Respondents

¶30

ORDER

¶31

This C riminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the plcrceedings^jn FtR No.145 of 2026 of Karimnagar-Ill Town police Station, Karirnnagar. wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused for the off-enr;es punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Ny'aya Sanhitha. 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Section 7 of the E,ssential Conrmodities Act, 1955 (for shorl 'llC Act,).

¶32

Heard ,lr.G.Basappa, leamed counsel fbr the petitioner and Vr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional public J)rosecutor fbr respondents.

¶33

¶34

The specihc allegation against the^{petitioner/accused is that} he has procured PDS rice from^{the beneficiaries at cheaperrate to} sell the same for^prohtand ot^{02.05.2026' the petitionerwas found} in possession of 30^quintals of^{PDS rice}

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner^{would submit that without} there being any complaint from^{any beneficiary, alleging thatthe} rice was^procured deceptively or^{with a criminal intentand} charging the petitioner for^{prosecution is untenable and improper.} The ailegations, even taken at^{his face value cannot be sustained} against the petitioner. Further,^{this Court, in Crl.P.Nos.5709of} 2019 and 3349 of 2015, while^{considering the samesiruation,} categorically observed that the^{offencesalleged againstthe} petitioners therein could not be continued^{and accordinglyquashed} the proceedings. The petitioner is also entitled^{to the same relief} and hence prayed to quash the^{proceedingsagainst the petitioner.}

¶36

The leamed Additional Public Prosecutor^{submits thatas per} prosecution, the offences said to^{have been committedby the} petitioner is cheating and violation of Section^{7 of the EC Act and} requested to pass appropriate orders.

¶37

¶38

Section 7 o1' the EC Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of essential commoditics. is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioner has procured PDS rice fiom the bcneficiaries after supply frorn the dealer.

¶39

A Coordinate Bench of this Courr in Cr1.p.No.7227 of 2025

¶40

has considered the identical facts and observed that:

¶41

'.Thert i-t tlo crernent indicating thclt the petitioner in uny wuy decel)tiyel\ intlucetl tlte benefciaries to pqrt ytith the supt'lied pDS ric.e or tht bet'4itiatt, i ttn$ted the PDS nce purchu.sed l:y them wirh the petilioner,mrl they dishonc.stly misappropriated or converted t<t their artn tt\c'o' ttscd it in t,iolation ofo bwrti direchofi or contract In the absenL:e o1' e-;senrial .[uc tors, on thc face dprosecution, lhts Cottrtfinds il to bt Lt Jit <trse to ('.\ercise the juritdiction under Section 5 2g of BNSS, 2023 7 hus, crtnrinttttnce ofproceedings dgainst the petitioner is abuse o.f protess ol lror".

¶42

The facts and circumstances of the present case also similar

¶43

to those in th,-. above case and hence, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein.

¶44

9 Accordingly, rhe Criminal^petition is allowed and the proceedings in FIR No. 145 of 2026 of Karimnagar_lll Town police

¶45

¶46

Station, Karimnagar, against the^{petitioner/accused,} are^hereby

¶47

quashed.

¶48

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶49

closed.

¶50