Allowed¶51

Mohammad Abdul Hameed @ Imran @ Thabrez, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Feb 2026CRLP/1847/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court (J. Sreenivas Rao, J., 12.02.2026) allows Crl.P.1847 of 2026 under S.528 BNSS and quashes C.C.No.587 of 2020 (Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise, Nizamabad) against accused charged under S.420 IPC and S.7 EC Act for procuring PDS rice from beneficiaries; 154 bags / 55.00 quintals of PDS rice seized on 09.07.2020; analogy drawn from Coordinate Bench ruling in Crl.P.No.1201 of 2025 (no deception of beneficiaries, no dishonest misappropriation of PDS rice); Crl.P.No.5709 of 2019 cited by counsel for similar quashing; no monetary award.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.587 of 2020 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise, Nizamabad, against the petitioner/accused quashed. ¶51

Mohammad Abdul Hameed @ Imran @ Thabrez, Vs The State… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.587 of 2020 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise, Nizamabad, against the petitioner/accused quashed.

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.587 of 2020 pending before the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise, Nizamabad, against the petitioner/accused for offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and Section 7 of the EC Act ought to be quashed under Section 528 BNSS. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

Finding the facts and circumstances of the present case similar to those in Crl.P.No.1201 of 2025 (Coordinate Bench), this Court held it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS by applying the same analogy, and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein.

¶50

Ratio / Principle

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No.1847 of 2026 under Section 528 BNSS, decided on 12.02.2026 by Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. Petitioner Mohammad Abdul Hameed @ Imran @ Thabrez sought quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.587 of 2020 (Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise, Nizamabad), wherein he was charged for offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, on the allegation that he procured PDS rice from beneficiaries at cheaper rate for profit and was found on 09.07.2020 in possession of 154 bags of PDS rice totalling 55.00 quintals. Counsel argued that, with no complaint from any beneficiary alleging deceitful procurement or criminal intent, prosecution was untenable, and relied on Crl.P.No.5709 of 2019 where similar proceedings were quashed. Relying on a Coordinate Bench decision in Crl.P.No.1201 of 2025 involving identical facts - where it was observed that, in the absence of deception of beneficiaries or dishonest misappropriation of PDS rice, continuation of prosecution was a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS as amounting to abuse of process - the Court found the present facts similar, exercised jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS by applying the same analogy, and quashed the proceedings. Criminal Petition allowed; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY.THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶5

TWO IHOUSAND AND I^/ENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1847 OF 2026

¶9

Betweerr

¶10

l,4ohammad Abdul Hameed @ lmran @ Thabrez, S/o Osman, Aged 36 years. Occ Busrness Rio H No 9-20 758, Shanthi Nagar Nizamabad Town and District Pincode. 503001 .

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep by rts Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana. at Hyderabad

¶14

Sri..B. Vijay Kanth Rao, S/o. Chalapathr Rao, Aged 37 years, Occ. Deputy Tahhrldhar (CS),

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS

¶16

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS. praying that in the circumstances stated in the N,4emorandum of Grounds of Crrminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the irrpugned proceedings in C.C.No. 587 of 2020. on the file of the Special Judicial fulagrstrate of First Class, Excise at Nizamabad, against the Petitio ne r/Accu sed, and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case

¶17

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026

¶18

Petition under Sectron 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\rlemorandum of Grounds of Crrminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interrrr stay of all further proceedrngs rn proceedings in C C No 587 of 2020. on the frle of the Special Judicial l\rlagrstrate of First Class, Excrse, at Nizamabad. including appearance and attendance of the Petitioner/ Accused, pending disposal of the above Crrminal petition.

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearrng, upon perusing the lVlemorandunt of Grounds of Crrminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sn Ga1e Raghu, Advocate for the Petitioner and V. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1, and none appears for Respondent No. 2.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

IN TI{E III(;II COUIII' I-OR^-I'HE STATI, Ot' I T,I,ANGANA AT ITYDERAI]AD

¶22

.I'III- II0\OTiIT \I}T,E SITI JUS] ICE J.SI{iF-\ IYAS R;\O

¶23

( llllll\ \L PE-l'll'lON No.I 817 of )t 26

¶24

I)ate: 12.02.2026

¶25

Bctrvecn

¶26

Nlohanrmail,\ltdLrl [{unrecd'zr Imran

¶27

I)etitioncr

¶28

I\ND

¶29

Thc S tatc ol-'lclansanu,

¶30

Itcp. by its I)ublic l)r1r:ccutor.

¶31

lligh Court ol' lclarrquna ancl another

¶32

Rcspondcnts

¶33

ORI)Ii]R

¶34

l'his^('rintinal [)t-tition Iras bccn tiied seekiLL; 11r quash the proceedines in ('.('\o.-5Sl o1' 2020. on tlie illc , l'rhe Spccial .lLrdicial Magistratc ol'Irir:r ('lass. Frcise at \izurt rbail. u.hercirr the petitionel [ras erraved as accuseci. tirr the ot'tfrr, L-s l]unishable under Scction 4?0 ol'rhe Inriian Penal Code, t560 rtc^{.shofl -lpC').} ancl Section 7 of thc l:ssenrial Cou'rmodities .\ct. I )55 (tbr shorr 'ECl Act').

¶35

Heard Mr.G. Ilaghr"r, learned counsel for thc retitioner and Mr. M.Vive kananda lLcddy. lcarned Additional pu r ic pr.osecutor

lbr respondcnt No. I

Ii-I

The spccific aLlegation against thc pctitioner/accused is that he had prrocured PDS rice from the benetrciaries at cheaper rate to sell the sanre tbr proliL and on 09.07.2020 at about 09:00 P.Nl, the petiLioner u'as lound in posse ssion ol 1 54 bags of PDS rice totailing 55.(r0 quintals

¶40

L.earned counsel for thc pctitioner rvould submit that u.'rtliout there being anv complaint from any beneficiary, alleging that the NCE \ AS plocurcd dccclrtii'cl1 or u ith a criminal intcnt and charging the petitioner lor prosecution is untenable and improper T[re allegations. e'v'er] takeLi at Iris l'acc valuc cannot be sustained against thc petitioner'. I"urther. this Cour1, in Crl.P.No.5709 ol 20 19, u hile consiilcring thc samc situation, categorically obscrved that the of'lbnccs alleged against thc petitioner therein could not be continued and accordingIy quashed the proceedings. The petitioner is also entitled to the same relicl and hence prayed to quash the proceed ings against the petitioner.

¶41

The learncd 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 ol the EC Act and requested to pass appropriate orders.

¶42

i i

¶43

¶44

Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate th,r an). person

¶45

contravenes rvith the production, suppl_v, distributit,r and tladc ol essential coLnmodities, is pLrnishablc. :\s per the pr rsecution, thc pelitioner has procurecl PDS rice il-onr the ben: I c ia ries a licr supply fiorr t[re dealer

¶46

A Coordinatc Bench o1-this C ourr in Crl.P.\o 12)1 ol 2025

¶47

has considelcd the identical tacts and observed that

¶48

"7'herc is o Lt1'tt)-Dtafit iniiLLt!!|q llttt tlt peritutntr it deccplirt'lv inclucetl tht lrnelictLrt it r ro lurt t ith tht ttppti, L [,D5^, ttc or the bcna/icitry ctttt'u.\tcl tlu: ['DS ricL purclruseti bt riL.:, petitiotlct' ontl thev di.yhoncstlt nti.ittltltt ot,nalal oI a:t)t'( t tt orln use or usecl it itt trolutiott rtl rL lutlii Lltrtctiott o.trtttt., uhsencc of essentiol .fttc to rs, cttt thc ficc oi pn)\ecuti0n, tht ( it to hc a lit cdse ta cxatcise tltt,jttristliction Lmrler Scttion t ) r.r/ 6^\15.S, 2023. lhus, t:ontinurtttt'c oJ'prot:,:t:dittts (1,!tLit1\t tltc lcutii))t, of procast of lat^".

¶49

The lacts and circumstances oI the prescnI case is also

¶50

sirnilar to those in the above case and hence. this C. -rrt tlnds it to be a flt case to exercise jurisdiction under Section -5.I o1'BNSS bv applying the same analogy and to qlrash the procee lines agarnst the petitioner herein

¶51

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allc ved and the proceedings in C.C.No.587 of 2020, on the file o the Special Judicial Magistrate of }rirst Class, Excise at Nizamabe 1, against thc petitioner/accused, is hereby quashed.

¶52

¶53

Pending nriscellancous applications, if any', shall sLand

¶54

closed

¶55

SD/- M.OSMAN ALI BAIG SSISTANT REGISTR

//TRUE COPY//

S TION OFFICER

The Special Judicral N4agistrate of Frrst Class se at Nizamabad (with

¶60

records if any)

¶61

llAdditional Judicral lrrlagistrate of First Class, at Nizamabad

¶62

The Station House Officer, Town _V poirce Station, Nizamabad.

¶63

9 9^"^{CC to Sri Gaje Raghu, Advocate Sri Gaje Raghu, Advocate Gaje Raghu, Advocate Advocate} tOpUCl

¶64

9 9^"^{CC to Sri Gaje Raghu, Advocate Sri Gaje Raghu, Advocate Gaje Raghu, Advocate Advocate} tOpUCl 4 Two ccs to Pubric prosecutor. High cLud for the state of rerangana (oUT) 5 Two CD Copies

BJLB/psl

HIGH COURT

DAf ED:1210212026

ORDER

I rS T4
,.)
,i ,I
/r12fr
t
r

¶70

CRLP.No.1847 ot2026