Allowed

Bommakanti Linga Swamy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Sept 2026CRLP/14876/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners were accused of procuring 53 quintals of PDS rice from beneficiaries to sell for profit, charged with cheating and violation of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The High Court quashed the proceedings, following a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case, holding that without evidence of deceptive inducement or entrustment by beneficiaries, the essential ingredients of the offences were absent and continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.1243 of 2022 pending before the III Additional Junior Civil Judge at Nalgonda against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 are quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed.

Bommakanti Linga Swamy 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

FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 14876 OF 2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

Bommakanti Linga Swamy, S/o. Laxmaiah, Aged About 36^{Years, Occ. DCM} Driver Rl/o. Voilapalli Village, Narayanapuram Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶9

Dachepalli Veenkateshwarlu, S/o. Narayana, Aged About 61^Years, Occ. Business, F/o.11-13-139712,Road No.2, Behind South^{lndia Shopping} Mall, Margadarshi Colony, Kothapet, Hyderabad.

¶10

Veeramalla Ramesh, Sio. Aluvaiah,' Aged About^{40 Years,Occ- Business,} Ri,/o. Nampally Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶11

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,^{High Court for the} State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶14

Bakkathatla Vijaya, W/o.Srinivas, Nayab Tabsildar^(Civil Supplies),^Chandur, Nalgonda District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS^praying that in the circumstances^statedin the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,^{the High Court may be pleased to} quash the proceedings in CC.No.1243 ol 2022 arising out of Crime No.36 of 2022 of Munugodu Police Station, Nalgonda District,^pending on the^{file of the lll Additional} Junior Civil Judge At Nalgonda, against the Petitioners/Accused^{Nos.1to 3.}

¶17

l.A. NO: 2OF 2026

¶18

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances^statedin the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,^{the High Court may be pleased to} stay all further^proceedings in CC.No.1243^{of 2022 arising out of Crime No. 36 of} 2022 ol Munugodu Police Station, Nalgonda^{District, pendingon the file of the} Honourable lll Additional Junior Civil^Judge At^{Nalgonda, against the} Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3.

¶19

This Petition crming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kavali Vishnu Kanth, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Addition'al Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for ther Respondent No.2.

¶20

The Gourt made the following: ORDER

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT FO R TIIE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI)

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS^RAO

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14876^{of 2026} CNR No. HBHC0106151 ., 26

¶24

Datet 11.09.2026

¶25

Between:

¶26

Bommakanti Linga Swamy and 2 others

¶27

..Petitioners

¶28

AND

¶29

The State ofTelangana, and another

¶30

...Respondents

¶31

ORDER

¶32

This Criminal Petition^, has been filed by^the

¶33

petitioners/accused Nos.l to 3 seeking to^{quashthe proceedingsin} C.C.No.l243 of 2022, on the^{file of the III AdditionalJunior Civil} Judge at Nalgonda.

¶34

Heard Mr.K.Vishnu Kanth,^{leamed counsel for the} petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao^{Veeramalla, learned Additional} Public Prosecutor for respondent^No.1

¶35

The specific allegation against^{the petitioners/accusedNos.l}

¶36

to 3 is that they have^{procuredPDSrice fromthe beneficiariesat} cheaper rate to^{sell the same for profit and on 31.03.2022,rhe} petitioners were^{found in possessionof 53 quintals of} f^{DS rice.}

¶37

¶38

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that without there being any complaint from any beneficiary, alleging that the rice ryas procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging the petitioners for prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations, even taken at their face value cannot be sustained against the p,s1i1isns.t. Further, this Court, in Crl.P.No.5709 of 20 19, while c onsidering the same situation, categorically observed that the offen,:es alleged against the petitioners therein could not be continued ard accordingly qud:shed the proceedings. The petitioners ar() also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the pro,teedings against the pdtitioners.

¶40

The leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per prosecution, -he offences said to have been committed by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short'EC Act') and requested to pass appropriate orders

¶41

Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate that any person contravenes u,ith the production, supply, distribution and trade of essential comrnodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the

¶42

-7

¶43

petitioners have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after

¶44

supply fiom the dealer

¶45

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

¶46

has considered the identical facts and observed that:

¶47

"There is no dyerment indicating that the petitioner in any way deceptively induced the beneficiaries to pqrt wilh the supplied PDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitioner and they dishonestly misappropriated or conyerted to their own use or used it in violation of d lawful direction or contract. In the absence of essential factors, on the face ofprosecution, this Courtfinds it to be d fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance ofproceedlngs against the petitioner is abuse of process of law".

¶48

The facts and circumstances of the present case also similar

¶49

to those in the above case and hence, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein

¶50

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.1243 of 2022, on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge at Nalgonda, against the petitioners/accused Nos. I to 3, are hereby quashed.

¶51

-I

¶52

¶53

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶54

closed.

¶55

//TRUE COPY//

¶56

SD/. K. BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR d

¶57