Allowed

Motam Ganesh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Sept 2026CRLP/14595/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed a criminal petition seeking quashing of proceedings in FIR No. 142 of 2026 against the petitioner, who was accused of selling PDS rice at a profit. Relying on identical facts found in a coordinate bench's decision in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025, and noting the lack of specific complaints regarding deception or criminal intent, the Court held that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in FIR No. 142 of 2026 of Karimnagar-III Town Police Station against the petitioner/accused are hereby quashed.

Motam Ganesh 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 SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 14595 OF 2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

Motam Ganesh, Sio. Rajaiah, Age. 21 years, Occ. Driver, R/o. Manakondur Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District, Telangana State.

¶9

...Petitioner/Accused

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

Through State Police, (B Jagadeeshwar), Age. 47 Years, Occ. Sub lnspector of Police, R:/o. Karimnagar Town and Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

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 proceedings against the petitioner /Accused in FIR No.142 of 2026 on the file of the SHO, Karimnagar lll Town P.S., Karimnagar District.

¶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 Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings against the petitioner/Accused in FIR No.142 of 2026 on the file of the sHo, Karimnagar lll rown p.S., Karlmnagar District for pending disposal of the main criminal petition.

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G Basappa, Advocate for Ine^petitioner and sri Jrthender Rao Veeramaila, rearned Additional public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents.

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶21

(IRIMINAL PETITION No.14595 of 2026

¶22

CNR.No. HBHC010611t72026

Date: 08.09.2026

Between:

Motam Ganesh

...Petitioner

AND

'[hc State of f elangana and another

¶29

...Respondents

¶30

ORDER

¶31

This Cnminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in IilR No.142 of 2026 of Karimnagar-lll Town Police Station, Karimnagar. wherein the petitioner was an'ayed as accused for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) ofthe Bharatiya Nyay'a Sanhitha. 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act')

¶32

Heard i{r G. Basappa,^{Ieamedcounsel for the petitioner and}

¶33

Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla,^{learnedAdditional Public}

¶34

Prosecutor^{for resPondents.}

¶35

¶36

The specific allegation against^{the petitioner/accused is that} he has procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at^{cheaper rate to} sell the same for profit and on28.04.2026, the^{petitionerwas found} in possession of 45 quintals of PDS rice.

¶37

Leamed counsel for the petitioner would submit that^without there being any complaint fiom any beneficiary, alleging^{that the} Ce WaS procured deceptively or with a criminal^intentand charging the petitioner for prosecution is untenable^{and improper.} The allegations, 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 samesituation,} categorically observed that the^{offencesalleged againstthe} petitioners therein could not be continued and^{accordinglyquashed} the proceedings. The petitioner is also^{entitled to the samerelief} and hence prayed to^quash the^{proceedings against the petitioner.}

¶38

The leamed Additional Public^{Prosecutor submitsthat as per}

¶39

prosecution, the offences said to^{have been committedby the} petitioner is cheating and^{violationof Section7 of the EC Act and} requested to pass appropriate^orders.

¶40

Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate that any person contravenes rvith the production, supply, distribution and trade of essentiaI commodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioner has procured pDS rice from the benef,rciaries after supply from the dealer.

¶41

A Coordinate Bcnch of this Court in Crl.p.No.7227 of 2025

¶42

has considered the identical facts and observed that:

¶43

"Thert, i.s t.t) uyermt,nt indicating thqt the petitioner in any way decaptirelv i dutecl tht benef;ciaries tt, part \dth tht supplied pDS rice or the heneJitittr-v (nttltstc(l the pDS rice purchasecl by thent with the l)etitioner^onl thel di|;honestly misappropriqted or conyerted to their owtt uJc ot'trserl it tn t tolotion ola lawful direction or contract. ln the obsence, oJ es,ential factors ctn the face ofprosecution, this CourtJinds it to be a./ir c,tst'to !xe'rci.\e the juisdictio under Sec.ti<tn 52g ofBNSS, 202-l l'hu.t, t ontinuan(e ofproceedings against rhe pslililtner is abuse ofproccs: oftutt'.

¶44

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 exercisc jurisdiction under Section 52g of BNSS by applying the sante analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein.

¶45