Allowed¶48

Mohammed Aslam, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Jan 2026CRLP/231/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 528 BNSS 2023; PDS rice possession case (10 quintals, 09.03.2025); offences under Section 318(4) BNS 2023 (described by prosecution as cheating) and Section 7 Essential Commodities Act 1955; no complaint from beneficiaries alleging deceptive procurement; abuse of process of law; followed Coordinate Bench decision in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025; referred Crl.P.Nos.5709 of 2019 and 33493 of 2018; Telangana High Court at Hyderabad; Criminal Petition No. 231 of 2026; Justice Tirumala Devi Eada; decided 08-01-2026.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings in C.C. No. 2995 of 2025 on the file of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, quashed against the petitioner-accused; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed. ¶48

Mohammed Aslam, Vs The State of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner-accused in C.C. No. 2995 of 2025 on the file of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for offences under Section 318(4) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, are liable to be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.

¶12

Court's answer

Finding the facts and circumstances of the present case similar to those in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025 (where a Coordinate Bench had observed that, absent averments of deceptive inducement of beneficiaries or dishonest misappropriation of PDS rice, continuance of proceedings is an abuse of process of law), this Court found it a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS by applying the same analogy.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

The Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 2995 of 2025 on the file of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the petitioner-accused are quashed.

¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Tirumala Devi Eada, J.), Crl.P. No. 231 of 2026, decided 08-01-2026: Allowed. Petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 by the accused in C.C. No. 2995 of 2025 (VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad), registered for offences under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, on the allegation that he procured PDS rice from beneficiaries at a cheaper rate to sell for profit and was found in possession of 10 quintals of PDS rice on 09.03.2025. Held: no beneficiary had complained that the rice was procured deceptively or with criminal intent; a Coordinate Bench in Crl.P. No. 7227 of 2025, on identical facts, had observed that in the absence of averments of deceptive inducement, entrustment or dishonest misappropriation, continuance of proceedings is an abuse of process of law. Applying the same analogy, the Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stood closed.

¶1

134441

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^{TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 231 OF 2026

¶5

Between:

¶6

Mohammed Aslam,, s/o. Fathe [/ohammed, Aged 39 years, occ Business. r/o, H.No 18-1-350/1 1112511, Gulshan lqbal Colony, Chandrayangutta Hyderabad.

¶7

... PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶8

AND

¶9

The State of Telangana,, Rep By the Public Prosecutor Telangana High Court, Hyderabad

¶10

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT Santhoshnagar Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶11

2 Sri P. Manikanta Ra.i,, Sl of Police, P.S. Santhoshnagar Hyderabad

¶12

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crminal Petition. the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 2995 ol 2025 on the file of the Vll Addl. Chief fVletropolrtan Magistrate at Hyderabad, to the extent of the petitioner, who are arrayed as accused,

¶13

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2026

¶14

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 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 including the^personal appearance in C.C. No. 2995 ot 2025 on the file of the Vll Addl. Chief lV'letropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, to the extent of the petitioner, who are arrayed as Accused;

¶15

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crrminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Srt lvl W^R JAYAKAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Addl Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appear^for the Respondent No.2;

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

lN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF Tl: -ANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶18

THE HON'BLE SMT.^{JUSTICETIRUMALADI VI EADA}

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION No .2310F^{20 2;}

DATE:08-01-2026

Between

Mohammed Aslam

.. Petitioner

And

The State of Telangana, Rep by the Public^Prosecutor, Telangana High Court,^HYderabad and another

¶26

Respondents

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Criminal Petition, under^{Section 528 of Et aratiyaNagarik} Suraksha Sanhita, 2023^{(for short, 'BNSS')'is filedr; reking to quash} the proceedings against the^{petitioner-accused in ) C No 2995 of} 2025 on the file of learned^{Vll Additional Chi :f lrletropolrtan} Magistrate, Hyderabad,^{registeredfor the offence;under Section} 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya^{Sanhitha,2023(for sh rrt, 'BNS')and} Section 7 of the Essential Commodities^{Act, 1955.}

¶29

2 Heard Sri lvl W R. Jayakar, learned counsel^{( r the petitioner} and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned^{Ac Citional Public} Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.'l-State

¶30

¶31

ETD,J Crl.P.No.231 of 2026

¶32

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the specific allegation against the petitioner is that he has procured pDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 09.03.2025 at about 17:30 hours, the petitioner was found in possession of '10 quintals of pDS nce

¶34

Learned counser for the petitroner further submrts that without there being any complaint from any beneficiary, alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and chargrng the petitioner for prosecution, is untenable and improper The allegations on their face value cannot be sustained against the petihoner. Further, this Court in Crl.p.Nos.S7O9 of 2019 and 33493 of 2O1S while consrdering the same situation, categorically observed that the offences alleged against the petitioners therein cannot be continued and quashed the proceedings. The petitioner herein is arso entifled to the same relief and hence, prayed to quash the proceedings rn the present C.C. against the petitioner.

¶35

The learned Additional public prosecutor submits that as per prosecution, the offence said to have been committed by the petitioner is cheating and violation of section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and requested to pass appropriate orders.

¶36

¶37

ETD,J Crl.P.No.23t of²⁰²⁶

¶38

Perused the material available^{on record}

¶39

Sections 7 and B of the Essential^{O rmmoditiesAct} contemplate that any^{person contraveneswith the production,} supply, distribution and trade of^{essentialcommocliies or abetment} in this regard, is^punishable. As^{per the prosecutrc't, the petitioner} has procured PDS rice from the^{beneficiaries afte' supply from the} d ea ler.

¶40

\ \

¶41

B A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7^{227 of 2025 has} considered the identical^facts and^{observed that}

¶42

"There is no averment indicating that the 6:titioners tn any way deceptively^ind uced the beneficiaries^to 1^{art with the} supplied PDS rice or the beneficiary^{entrusted t} =^{PDS rice} purchased by them with the petitioners and the / dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use r^{used it in} violation of a lawful direction or contract.^{ln the absenceof} essentiat factors, on the face of^prosecution, this^{( ourt finds it} to be a fit case to exercise the^jurisdiction under^{Se :tion 528 of} BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of^{proceedings against the} petitioners is abuse of process of law."

¶43

The facts and circumstances of the^preser I case are^also similar to those in the above case and hence,^{this Cc lrt finds it to be} a fit case to exercise Jurisdiction under^{Section I I 8 of BNSS by}

¶44

¶45

ETD,J Crl.P.No r31of 2026

¶46

¶47

applying the same anarogy and quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein

¶48

Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No 29 95 of 2025 on the file of learned Vll Additional Chief tr4etropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the petitioner-accused, are hereby quashed.

¶49

lvliscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed

¶50

SD/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'i . The Vll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad(with records, if any) 2. The Station House Officer, Santoshnagar p S., Hyderabad 3. One CC to SRl. lM W R JAYAKAR Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUIOR, High Court at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶56