Allowed

Chappidi venkata Krishna @ Kittu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Sept 2026CRLP/14887/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against seven petitioners accused of procuring PDS rice from beneficiaries and possessing 3.5 quintals of such rice. The court held that without any averment of deceptive inducement or entrustment followed by misappropriation, the essential ingredients of cheating and criminal breach of trust were absent. Following a coordinate bench decision in Crl.P.No.1227 of 2025 on identical facts, the court exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS and quashed the proceedings as an abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C. No. 1673 of 2025 on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bhadradri Kothagudem against petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 7 are quashed.

Chappidi venkata Krishna @ Kittu Vs The State of… — 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 TWENry SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J^{SREENIVAS RAO}

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 14887^{OF 2026}

¶7

Between:

¶8

'1 . Chappidi venkata Krishna @ Kittu, S/o Mohan Rao, Age: 25 yrs, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Fathimapuram Cross Road,Chintalapudi^{(M), Eluru Dist,A P}

¶9

Challagulla Ram Mohan Rao @ Rambabu,^{S/o Satyan aayana, Age: 49 Yrs,} Occu: Kamma, Rl/o Narsannapalem(v),^{Lingapalem(M),Eluru Dist,A.p.}

¶10

Bhuvaneswar Saahu, SiO Govardhan^{Saahu, Age:27 yrs, Occu: Lorry Driver} R/o Jenjra(V), Raajim(M), Gariyabad^{Dist,ChattisgarhState.}

¶11

Chitranjan Tarak, S/o Suresh Tarak,^{Age22 yrs, Occu: LorryCleaner,Rlio} H.No.227, Kapsidihar^(V), Teka Post^{Rajim(M), GariyabadDist,Chattisgarh} State.

¶12

Chityala Ramakanka Chary, Sio^{Satyanarayana,Age: 40 Yrs,Occu:} Agriculture, Fl/o H.No. 3-72,Munukulla^{(V), Thiruvur (M),NTRDist, A.P}

¶13

Rachabanti Nagaraju, S/o^{Tatappa,Age: 28 yrs, Occu: TractorDriver,Rl/o} H.NO.3-34, Munukulla^(V), Thiruvuru^{(M), NTR Dist,AP.}

¶14

Prampreet Singh Dhanjal, S/o Dhyan^{Singh Dhanjal,Age: 30 yrs,Occu: Lorry} Driver, Rl/o H.No.214(1), Bagdehi Para,^{Ward No.16,Gobra Nawapara(Vand} M), Raipur State, Chattisgarh State.

¶15

...Petitioners/Accused No.¹ to 7

¶16

AND

¶17

The State of Telangana, rep. by the^{publicProsecutorHigh Courtof} Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶18

Smt Vijaya Guija, Sl, Kothagudem 1^{Town, BhadradriKothagudem,} Telangana

¶19

...Respondents

¶20

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum of Grounds of^{Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased} to^quash the^proceedings cc.^{No. 1673 OF 2025 lAdditionalJudicial First Class}

¶21

Magistrate At Bhadrradri Kothagudem, Bhdradri Kothagudem District, against the Petitioner/Accused.

¶22

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026

¶23

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of^(irounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further procee:dings and including arrest of petitioner C.C. No.1673 ol 2025 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bhadradri Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District for offences under Section 318(4) Sec 7 ECA pending disposal of the above criminal petition.

¶24

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition anrl upon hearing the arguments of Sri S Chandra Mohan Reddy, Advocate for the Petiticners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents.

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶29

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14887 of 2026 CNR No.HBH C0106059 4202 Date:1L.09.2026

¶30

Between

¶31

Chappidi Venkata Krishna @ Kittu and 6 others

¶32

...Petitioners

¶33

AND

¶34

The State of Telangana, and another

¶35

...Respondents

¶36

ORDER

¶37

This Criminal Petition . has been filed by the

¶38

petitioners/accused Nos.l to 7 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1673 of 2025, on the frle of the I Additional Judicial First

¶39

Class Magistrate at Bhadradri Kothagudem.

¶40

Heard Mr.S.Chandra Mohan Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents.

¶41

The specific allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos.l

¶42

to 7 is that they have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 05.05.2025, the petitioners wEfdfound in possession of 3.5 quintals of PDS rice.

¶43

¶44

Learnel counsel for the petitioners would submit that without there being any complaint from any beneficiary, alleging that the rice vras procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging the petitioners for prosecution is untenable and improper 'fhe allegations, even taken at their face value cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Further. this Court, in Crt.P.No.5709 of 2019, while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the offenr;es alleged against the petitioners therein could not be continued and accordingly qudshed the proceedings. The petitioners at: also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the pror:eedings against the p6titioners

¶45

The lea:ned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as^per prosecution, the offences said to have been committed by the petitioners is ;heating and violation of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for shorl^'EC Act') and requested to^pass appropriate orlers.

¶46

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

¶47

t--

¶48

¶49

petitioners have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer.

¶50

A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.1227 of 2025

¶51

has considered the identical facts and observed that:

¶52

"There is no averment indicating that the petitioner in any way deceptively induced the benefciaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitioner and they dishonestly misapproprialed or converted to their own use or used it in violation of a luuful direction or contrdct. In the absence of essential factors, on the face ofprosecation, this Court finds it to be afit case to exercise thejurisdiction under Section 528 ofBNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedihgs against the petitioner is abuse of prr.tcess of law".

¶53

The facts and circumstances of the present case also similar

¶54

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.

¶55

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.1673 of 2025, on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Ciass Magistrate at Bhadradri Kothagudem, against the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 7, are hereby quashed.

¶56

¶57

Pendinlg miscellaneous^{applications, ifany, shallstand}

¶58

closed

¶59

SD/. K. BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶60

//TRUE COPY//

¶61

¶62

SECTION OFFICER