Allowed

Ganta Lachaiah @ Laxman, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Sept 2026CRLP/14588/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed a criminal petition to quash proceedings against the petitioner accused of procuring PDS rice and violating food security laws. The court held that without specific allegations of deceptive procurement or criminal intent from beneficiaries, the charges under the BNS and EC Act could not be sustained. Relying on consistent precedents, the court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. to quash the FIR.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in FIR No.171 of 2026 against the petitioner/accused were hereby quashed.

Ganta Lachaiah @ Laxman, Vs The State of Telangana — Corruption | 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 PETITION NO: 14588 OF 2026

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Ganta Lachaiah @ Laxman, S/o. Yellaiah, Aged 24 years, Occ. Labour, R/o Kurmapalli Village, Peddapalli [\ilandal and District. Pincode 505187.

¶9

... Petitioner/Accused

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

2 Sri K Elia, HC-461, Peddapalli Rural P.S, Peddapalli District. Pincode 505172.

¶13

... Respon dents/Com plainant

¶14

Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the l/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the impugned proceedings in F.l.R. No. 171 of 2026, on the file of the Peddapalli Rural Police Station, Peddapalli District., in so far as Petitioner/ Accused, is concerned.

¶15

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026

¶16

Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\rlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings in F.l.R. No. 171 ol 2026, on the file of the Peddapalli Rural Police Station, Peddapalli Diskict., including appearance and attendance of the Petitioner / Accused, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition

¶17

Thrs Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G. Raghu, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents.

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

[N^THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELA NGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶20

THE HONOUR.{BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENTVAS RAO

¶21

(IRIMINAL PETITION No.14588 of 2026 CNR.No. HBHC01061 1922026 Date:08.09.2026

¶22

Between:

¶23

Ganta Lacharah @ l.axman

¶24

...Petitioner

¶25

AND

¶26

The State ofTelangana, and another

¶27

...Respondents

¶28

ORDER

¶29

This Criminal Petition has teen filed seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.i71 of 2026 of Peddapalli Rural Police Station, Ramagundam District, wherein the petitioner was arrayed

¶30

as accused for the offences punishable under Section 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha,2023 (for short^'BNS') and Section 7 of the llssentiat Crrmmodities^{Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act').}

¶31

Heard Mr.G.Raghu, learned counsel for^{the petitionerand}

¶32

Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla,^{leamed Additional Public}

¶33

Prosecutor firr rcspondents

¶34

¶35

The^{specific allegationagainst the petitioner/accused is that} he has^{procured PDS rice fromthe beneficiaries at cheaperrate to} serl the^{samefor profitand on 3o.og.zoz6,thepetitionerwas found} in possession^{of 12 quintalsofPDS rice'}

¶36

Learned^{counsel tbr the petitionerwould 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 petitioner for prosecutionis untenable and improper'} The allegations,^{even taken at his face value cannot be sustained} against^{the petitioner' Further' this Court' in Crl'P'Nos'5709 of} 2019 and^{3349 of 2015' while considering the same situation'} categorically^{obsewedthat the offencesalleged againstthe} petitioners^{therein could not be continued and accordinglyquashed} the^{proceedings' The petitioneris alsoentitled to the samerelief} and hence^{prayed to quash the proceedingsagainst the petitioner'}

¶37

The learned^{AdditionalPubiicProsecutor submits thatas per} prosecution,^{the ofl.ences said to have been committedby the} petitioner^{is cheating and violationof Section7 of the EC Act and} reques{ed^{to pass appropriate orders'}

¶38

¶39

Section 7 ol 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 petitioner has procured pDS rice from the beneflciaries after supply from the dealer

¶40

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

¶41

"There is no ayerment indict de c ept ite ty,d;,,',t,:;', ;|;:;":,:::.'.t::t t.he . f t: ttoner in any way ro pqrt wifi the suppried pDS ric.e <tr rhc heneti<.iary "r,rr,r',"),^rr'!''"t o^1.,:1,:::,.,0,i"ii,,i,,i,i;;:::;;::;;;:J,:f ,?,:::[r-,::;:; own use ose, it in iolarion of a to1ui aiur:tio, i|"r*ZZrr, ,r rf" il ab.sence to be aft,.ctse of essential tu exercise factors, the o, ih" i 7oi" oypror"r,ir,"iir,[Zir. n, '"i';",1:::ii:;";;::;;::::;i;;:':,r:,:;:;:;:::,:[ffi;

¶42

8 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 52g of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein.

¶43