Allowed

Suresh Tekedar, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Sept 2026CRLP/14597/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-bench criminal petition filed to quash proceedings in FIR regarding allegations of procuring PDS rice at cheaper rates for resale. Petitioner argued lack of beneficiary complaints rendered prosecution untenable. Court relied on identical facts in coordinate precedents to quash proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in FIR No. 168 of 2026 against the petitioner were quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

Suresh Tekedar, Vs The State of Telangana — Cheque Dishonour | 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: 14597 OF 2026

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Suresh Tekedar, S/o, Khokhan Tekedar, Age- 35 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o.1361, Bengali Camp, Sirpur Town, Kumrambheem, Asifabad District

¶9

...Petitioner/Accused

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad, Through The SHO, Sirpur Police station, Kumrambheem, Asifabad D istrict.

¶12

... Res pon denUCom pla ina nt

¶13

Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the Hrgh Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in FIR No. 168 ot 2026 on the file of the Station House Officer, Sirpur Police Station at Sirpur, Kumrambheem Asifabad District, against the Petitioner.

¶14

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026

¶15

Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the lMemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further agarnst the petitioner/Accused rn FIR No.^'168 of 2026 on the file the Station House Officer, Sirpur Police Station at Sirpur, Kumrambheem Asifabad District till the disposal of the lvlarn Quash Petition in the interest of the justice.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the [/]emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Ramulu Pasupula, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Iearned Additronal Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

IN THE HIGH COUR'T FORTHE STATE OF'TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14597 of 2026 CNR.No. HBHCO10612302026 Date: 08.09.2026

Between:

Suresh lekedar

...Petitioner

AND

The State of l elangana

¶26

.. .Respondent

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This Climinal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.168 of 2026 of Sirpur forvn Police Station, Kumurambheem Asifabad District, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused lor the offences punishable under Section 318(4) ol the l]haratiy.a Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short 'BNS'), Section 7 of the lrssential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act') and Section 17(e) of the Telangana State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016

¶29

Hearcl Mr.p.Ramulu, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional public Prosr.e ulr rr li,r rt.sponrle nl.

¶30

.--

¶31

¶32

The specific allegation against the petitioner/accuse d^{is that} he has procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries^{at cheaper rate to} sell the same for profit and on20.08.2026, the^{petitionerwas found} in possession of 32.2 quintals of PDS rice.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without there being any complaint from any beneficiary, alleging that the rlce was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and 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 Cr1.P.Nos.5709 of 2019 and 3349 of 2015, 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 petitioner is also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner

¶34

The leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per prosecution, the offences said to have been committed by the petitioner is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the EC Act and requested to pass appropriate orders

¶35

Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate that any person contravenes rvith the production. supply. distribution and trade of essential conrmodities. is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioner has procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after suppll, from the dealer.

¶36

A^('oordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.p.No.722i of 2025 has consiclered the identical facts and observed that

¶37

" [her,. is nt) otern](nt indicating. that the petitioner in any wctl, dt:ceptuch intluc<:cl llrc baneficiaries to part v:ith the .supplied PDS rice or th( btnL:lit ion entru.\led the PDS rice purchosetl b1' them w,ith the p(titioner und the'., clishonestly misupproprioted or (:onyerted to their orrn u\e^t)r l$ed tt in t'iolution oJ a lawful direction or contract. In the ohsen(t! t)l .sscntiul /irctors, on the fale ofprosectrtion, thi.t Courtfincls it to bt'^q lit iqse tt) erercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 ofBNSS, 2023.^'Ihu: conttnLunc( rdproceedings dgq.inst the petitioner is ctbuse o/ proct:,s; ol lttt,^"

¶38

The facts and circumstances of the present case also similar

¶39

to those in the above case and hence, this Court finds it to be a f,it case to exercise^jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS by appl)'ing the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioncr hcrein

¶40