Allowed

Md. Sameer @ Mohammad Sameer v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Sept 2026CRLP/14593/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by accused under Section 528 BNSS sought quashing of FIR No. 202 charging them under Section 318(4) BNS and EC Act for procuring PDS rice. Court allowed petition applying analogy from coordinate bench decision finding prosecution untenable absent evidence of deceptive inducement.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in FIR No. 202 of 2026 against petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 are quashed.

Md. Sameer @ Mohammad Sameer Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTE[/BER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J^{SREENIVAS RAO}

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 14593 OF²⁰²⁶

¶8

Between:

¶9

tV1d. Sameer @ Mohammad Sameer, S/o.^{Ta.1,Aged 24 years, Occ.Labour,} R/o H No. 2-1-39013, Bandarikunta Village,^{Peddapalli IVandalandDistrict} Pincode.505172

¶10

Vanarasi Veeraiah @ Veeraswamy, S/o. Mutharah,^{Aged 44 years, Occ.} Business, R/o. H.No. 5-'149, Devunipalli, Sultanabad Mandal,^Peddapalli District Pincode. 505185.

¶11

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 and 2

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Tela ng a na, at Hyderabad

¶14

Sri. S. Pochaiah, Deputy Tahsildar^(CS), Peddapalli District.^{Pincode 505172}

¶15

,..RESPONDENTS/COMPLAI NANTS

¶16

Petitron under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated^rn the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be^{pleased to} quash the impugned proceedings in F l.R. No. 202 of 2026, on the file of the Peddapalli Police Station, Peddapalli District, in so far as Petitioners/ Accused^Nos. 1 and 2, are concerned.

¶17

f .A. NO: 2 OF 2026

¶18

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS prayrng that in the circumstances^statedln the N/lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the^{High Court may be pleasedto} grant interim stay of all further proceedings in F.l.R. No. 202 of 2026, on the^{file of} the Peddapalli Police Station, Peddapalli District.,^{including appearanceand} attendance of the Petitioners / Accused Nos.¹ and^{2, pending disposal of the above} Criminal petition.

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the^{[\4emorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petrtion and upon hearing the arguments^{of Sri GAJE RAGHU,} Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender^{RaoVeeramalla,the Addl.Public} Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents No.1 &^2.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF'TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶22

'fHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14593 of 2026 CNR.No. HBHC0l0611 952026 Date: 08.09.2026

¶24

Between:

¶25

Md.Samecr @ Mohammad Sameer and another

¶26

Petitioners

¶27

AND

¶28

lhe State of Telangana, and another

¶29

...Respondents

¶30

ORDER

¶31

This Criminal Petition' has been filed by the petitioners,accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.202 of 2026 of Peddapalli Police Station, Ramagundam District. wherein the petitioner was arrayed AS accused for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiy'a Nyala Sanhitha,2023 (for short 'BNS') and Section 7 of the f:ssential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short^'EC Act').

¶32

Heard Mr.G Raghu, leamed counsel fbr the petitioners and Mr..lithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional public

¶33

Prosccutor fbr rcspondents

¶34

¶35

--r

¶36

J The specific allegation against^{the petitionersis that they} have procured PDS^{rice from the beneftciaries at cheaperrate to} sell the same for^prohtand on^{14.08.2026, the petitionerswere} found in possession of¹ 0^{quintalsof PDSrice}

¶37

Learned counsel for the^{petitionerswould submitthat} without there being any complaint^{from any beneficiary,} alleging that the rice was^{procureddeceptively or with a criminal} intent and charging the^petitioners for^{prosecutionis 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 accordingly quashed the proceedings. The petitioners are also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to^quash the^{proceedings against} the petitioners.

¶38

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

¶39

¶40

C'ommodities Act. 1955 (for short 'EC Act') and requested to

¶41

pass applopriate orders

¶42

6 Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate that any person contravenes rvith the production, supply, distribution and trade of essential cornmodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS rice fiom the beneficiaries after suppll' fr.om the dealer.

¶43

A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7227 of

¶44

2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that

¶45

"7hert r.; lo (^'er tent indicating thut the petitioner in ttny vcty deceptn'elv nduced the beneficiories to part with the supplied PDS rice or tha bL,ne./icicrry- cntntsted the PDS rica purchast'd by them *-ith the petitioner and thev ii.shonastly misappropriuted or converted to their oun use^()r rtsed it in tiolution of u kwful direction ar conracL ln the ab.sence of t senttul.lctcror.s, on the face ofprose'cutron, this Courtrlnds it to fu t lit , ar! to^(\ercise the jurisdictktn undcr Scclion 528 ofBNSS, 2023. l lttrs. conlittu{ut(e ol proceedings uguinst thc petitioner i,s ubuse o.f proces.t o.i Lcnt^'.

¶46

The facts and circumstances of the present oase aiso

¶47

similar to those in the above case and hencc. this Court finds it to be a ht case to exercisc jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein

¶48

¶49

¶50

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is^allowed and^the

¶51

proceedings in FIR No.202 of 2026 of Peddapalli Police^Station,

¶52

Ramagundam District, against the petitioners/accused^Nos.1and

¶53

2, arehereby quashed

¶54

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶55

closed

¶56

SD/- K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRA

,TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1 . The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapalli

¶61

The Station House Officer, Peddapalli Police Station, Peddapalli District

¶62

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

¶63

One CC to SRI GAJE RAGHU Advocate [OPUC]

¶64

Two CD Copies

¶65

.I'PK/BA +

HIGH COURT

DATED: 08/09/2026

ORDER

CRLP.No.14593 of²⁰²⁶

1$f- STAf.c'
(
t(
1r SEP 216 o
Jof, .L
-<br>*
t
9Fs,,Alc
#
*r

¶71

CRTMINAL PETITION !S^ALLOWED

¶72

q'.|'u 1 cq^: ':,

Md. Sameer @ Mohammad Sameer v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Sameer @ Mohammad Sameer 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