Allowed

Anugam Ramesh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Sept 2026CRLP/14664/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed FIR No. 74 of 2026 registered at Hasanparthy Police Station against five petitioners accused of procuring 65.70 quintals of PDS rice from beneficiaries for profit. The court held that without any averment of deception, inducement, or entrustment by beneficiaries, the essential ingredients of cheating under Section 318(4) BNS and violation of Section 7 EC Act were absent. Relying on a coordinate bench decision in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025 involving identical facts, the court found the proceedings to be an abuse of process and quashed them under Section 528 BNSS.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 74 of 2026 of Hasanparthy Police Station against petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 5 quashed; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Anugam Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 14664 OF 2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

Anugam Ramesh, S/o. Kanukaiah, Age. 63 Years, Occ. Proprietor of M/s. Venkateshwara Rice Mill, Rro. Mucherla Village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Hanumakonda District.

¶9

Nooka Rajendra Prasad alias Rajendraprasad, S/o Nooka Raja Madhunaiah alias Nooka Rajamadhunaiah, Age. 53 Years, Occ. Gumastha, R/o. H. No. 55-1-1175111F/203, Ramaram, DSN Residency, Bheemaram, Hasanparthy Mandal, Hanumakonda District.

¶10

Chithari Erragattu, S/o. Pakeer, Age.30 Years, Occ. Coolie, R/o. H. No.'1033/60, Mulkanoor, Hanumakonda District (Earlier Karimnagar District)

¶11

Sirigiri Thirupathi, S/o. Sirigiri Pentaiah, Age. 33 Years, Occ. Coolie, R/o. H No. 6-4213121A, Arepalli, Husnabad Mandal, Siddipet District (Earlier Karimnagar).

¶12

Sirigiri Nagaraju, S/o Saraiah, Age.28 Years, Occ. Coolie, R/o. H. No 1033/33, Buduga Jangala Colony, Mulkanoor, Hanumakonda District^(Earlier Karimnagar)

¶13

..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 to 5

¶14

AND

¶15

1 The State of Telangana, through S.H.O., P.S. Hasanparthy, Hanumakonda District, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad

¶16

Sri. S. Ravi, Occ. Sub lnspector of Police, Hasanparthy Police Statron, Cell No 9948702721

¶17

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS

¶18

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be^pleased to quash the F.l.R. No. 74 of 2026 of P.S. Hasanparthy, Hanumakonda District, as against the petitioners/Accused No's. 1 to 5.

¶19

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026

¶20

Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated rn the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petiiio;, the High corrt may o" pr"ir"J t" stay of all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioners Accused lrio,s. .1 to s in F.l.R No 74 of 2026 of p.S Hasanparthy, Hanumakonda Dis;trict.

¶21

^ This Petrtion coming on for hearrng, upon perusing rhe Memorandum of Grounds of criminar^petition and upon hearing the arguments of srr K vENUMADHAV, Advocate for the petitioner and sri iithender Fao veeramaila, the Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents No..1 and 2.

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶25

CRIMINAL PETITTONNo.14664 of2026

¶26

CNR.No.HBH c0t0613462026

¶27

Date:09.09.2026

¶28

Between:

¶29

Anugam Ramesh and 4 others

¶30

..Petitioners

¶31

AND

¶32

The State ofTelangana and another

¶33

..Respondents

¶34

ORDER

¶35

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.74 of 2026 of Hasanparthy police Station, Warangal District, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 5, for the offences punishable under Section 3 1 8(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha,2023 (for short 'BNS') and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act').

¶36

Heard Mr.K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the

¶37

petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional

¶38

Public Prosecutor for respondents

¶39

¶40

The specific ailegation against the petitioners is that they have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 07.03.2026, the petitioners were found in possession of 65.70 quintals of PDS rice

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that without there being any complaint from any beneficiary, alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a crirniral intent and charging the petitioners for prosecution is untenable and improper The allegations, even taken at their face value canno be sustained agarnst the petitioners. Funher, this Court, in Crl.P.No.5709 of 20 I 9, while considering the same situation, categoric ally obsen'ed that the of-fences alleged against the petitioners therein could not be continued and accordingly quashed the proccedings. The petitioners are also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedrngs against the petitioners

¶42

5 The leamed Additional Public Prosecutor subnrits that as per prosecution, the offences said to have been comnitted by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Section 7 o:- the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short^'EC Act') and reouested to pass appropriate orders

¶43

¶44

Section 7 of the^{EC Act contemplatethat any person}

¶45

contravenes^{with the production, supply,distributionand trade of} essential commodities,^{is punishable. As per the prosecution,the} petitioners have procured PDS^{rice from the beneficiaries after} supply from the^dealer.

¶46

'7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025

¶47

has considered the identical facts^{and observed that:}

¶48

"There is no averment indicating that the petilioner in any^'ay deceptively induced the benefciaries^{to partwiththe suppliedPDS rice} or the benefciary entnsted^{the PDSrice purchased by them with the} petitioner and they dishonestly^{misappropriatedor converted t<t their} own use or usecl t in^violation ofa^{law;ful dLrection or controct [n the} absence of essential factors,^{on the} face^{of prosecution,this Court} finds it to be d ft cqse to exercise^{the junsdrctionunder Section 5 28 of BNSS'} 2023. Thus, continuance^{of proceedings agqinstthe petitioner is abuse} of process of ktw".

¶49

The facts and circumstances^{of the presentcase also similar}

¶50

to those in the above^{case and hence, this Court finds it to be a fit} case to exerclse^{jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS by} applying the same^{analogy and to quashthe proceedingsagainst} the petitioners^herein

¶51

g. Accordingly, the Criminal^{Petitionis allowedand the} proceedings in FIR^{No.74 of 2026 of HasanparthyPqice Statlon,}

¶52

¶53

Warangal District, against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5, are

¶54

hereby quashed.

¶55

Pending miscellaneous applications, if an1., shall stand

¶56

closed

¶57