Allowed¶55

Keshaboina Mogili v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Feb 2026CRLP/1678/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PDS rice procured from beneficiaries for wrongful gain; 650 bags / 325 quintals seized 15.02.2025; offences under S.318(4) BNS 2023 and S.7 Essential Commodities Act 1955; quashing of C.C.No.843 of 2025 (Hanumakonda) arising from Crime No.74 of 2025, Hasanparthy PS; jurisdiction exercised under S.528 BNSS; analogy drawn from coordinate Bench Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025 (abuse of process where no deceptive inducement/misappropriation averred); no beneficiary complaint; counsel also cited Crl.P.Nos.5709 of 2019 and 3149 of 2015; criminal petition allowed, proceedings quashed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.843 of 2025 pending before the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda, against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stood closed.

Keshaboina Mogili Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.843 of 2025 (arising out of Crime No.74 of 2025, Hasanparthy Police Station) against the petitioners as accused Nos.1 to 5, for offences under S.318(4) BNS and S.7 of the EC Act, ought to be quashed under S.528 of BNSS. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

Finding the facts and circumstances of the present case similar to those in the coordinate Bench decision in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025 (where it was observed that, absent averments showing deceptive inducement of beneficiaries, entrustment, dishonest misappropriation or conversion, continuance of proceedings would be an abuse of process), this Court held it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS by applying the same analogy.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

The Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.843 of 2025 pending on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda, against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 are quashed; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed.

¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No. 1678 of 2026, High Court for the State of Telangana (J. Sreenivas Rao, J.), decided 10.02.2026: Petitioners, arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.843 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda, arising out of Crime No.74 of 2025 of Hasanparthy Police Station, were charged under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 ('BNS') and Section 7 of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ('EC Act') for allegedly procuring PDS rice from beneficiaries at cheaper rates to sell for wrongful gain, and being found in possession of 650 bags (325 quintals) of PDS rice on 15.02.2025. Noting there was no complaint from any beneficiary that the rice was procured deceptively, and finding the facts similar to the coordinate Bench decision in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025 (which had observed that absent averments of deceptive inducement, entrustment or dishonest misappropriation, continuance of proceedings is an abuse of process), the Court held it a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, applied the same analogy, allowed the Criminal Petition and quashed the proceedings against accused Nos.1 to 5; pending miscellaneous applications stood closed.

¶1

PIN THE^{HIGHCOURTFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE J^{SREENIVAS RAO}

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1678 OF 2026

¶6

Between:

¶7

Keshaboina^{Mogili, S/o Lingaiah, Agedabout 47 years,Occ-} Business, R/o- Booranpally Village,^{Huzurabad lvlandal,} Karimnagar District.

¶8

Amudhapuram^{Sathish, S/o Veeresham, Aged about 37} -yea.rs, Occ- Driver, R/o Pangidipally^{Village, Kamalapur Mandal,} Hanumakonda^District.

¶9

Mothe^{Ramesh,S/o llaiah, Aged about 34 years, Occ- Gumasta,} R/o Punnel Village, lnavole^{Mandal, HanumakondaDistrict.}

¶10

4 Chitthari^{Erragattu,S/o Phakeer, Aged about 28 years,Occ-} Business, R/o Mulkanoor^{Village, Beemadevarapally Mandal,} Hanumakonda^District.

¶11

5 Bejjanki^{Srinivas, S/o Chandramouli,Aged about 56 years, Occ-} Bu5iness, R/o H. No.^{10-44/P, PangidipallyVillage,Kamalapur} Mandal, Hanumakonda^District.

¶12

.....PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS 1 TO⁵

¶13

AND

¶14

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

¶15

Sri S.^{Ravi, Sub-lnspectorof Police, Hasanparthy Police Station,} Hanumakonda District.

¶16

.....RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 proceedings in} C C^{No. 843 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Junior CivilJudge-} cum- Judicial^{tvlagistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda,arising out of} Crime^{No. 74 of 2025 of Hasanparthy Police Station}

¶18

l.A. NO:2OF 2026

¶19

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 stay all further} proceedings in C C No. 843 of 2025 on the file of the^{Principal Junior} Civil Judge^-cum- Judicral^{[t/lagistrateof First Class, Hanumakonda,} arising out of Crime No 74 of 2025 of^{Hasanparthy PoliceStation,} during the^pendency of the^{above Criminal Petition}

¶20

This Petition coming 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 the SRI JITHENDER^{RAO VEERAMALLA, Additional} Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent^{No.1 and of None} Appeared for the Respondent No²

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUS'TICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION No.l678 of 2026

¶25

Date:[0.02.2026

¶26

Between:

¶27

Keshaboina Mogili and 4 others

¶28

...Petitioners/Accused Nos.l to 5

¶29

AND

¶30

The State ofTelangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another.

¶31

...Respondents

¶32

ORDER

¶33

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.843 of 2025 pending on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda, wherein the petitioners were arrayed^as accused Nos.l to 5, for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Section 7 of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short

'EC Act')

! \

JSR, J Crlp _1678_2026

¶38

Heard Mr. K. Vishnu Kanth, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.l

¶39

The specific allegation against thc petitioners/accused Nos. I to 5 is that they have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for wrongful gain and that on 15.02.2025 at abour 00.30 hours, the petitioners were lound in possession of 650 bags of PDS rice conraining 325 quintals

¶40

Leamed counsel for the petitioners submits that without there being any complaint fiom any beneficiary, aleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging the petitioners fbr prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations, even taken at their face ,alue cannot be sustained against the petitioners. F-urther, this Court, in Crl.p.Nos.5709 of 2019 and 3149 of 2015, while considering rhe same situation, categorically observed that the offences aileged against the petitioners therein could not be continued and accordingty quashed the proceedings.^'fhe petitioners are also entitled to the same rerief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶41

¶42

¶43

JSR. J Crlp-1678 _2026

¶44

¶45

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that^{as per} prosecution, the oflence said to have been committed by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the EC Act and requested to pass appropriate orders

¶46

Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities in this regard is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer.

¶47

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

¶48

has considered the identical facts and observed that:

¶49

"There is no^qvermenl inclicuting thut the petitioner in any way deceptively inducatl the beneliciaries to parl with the supplied PDS rice or the benejciary entrusted the PDS rice purchased by them with the pelilioner and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violation of a lawful direction or cc,ntract. In the absencc of essential luctors, on lhe face of prutsecution, this Court finds it to be a ft cesc to cxerci-tc the^{juriscliction} under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceetlings againsl the pelitioner is abuse ofprocess of law".

¶50

The facts and circumstances of the present case also similar

¶51

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

¶52

¶53

JSR, J Crlp_1618 2026

¶54

applylng 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.843 ol 2025 pending on the file of the Principal Junror Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda, against the petitioners/accused Nos. I to 5, are hereby quashed.

¶56

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶57

closed

¶58

SD/. K.MADHAVI A REGISTRAR TISTANT //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER

¶59

To,

¶60