Telangana High Court
Pathi Devender vs The State Of Telangana, Through Sho ... on 1 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4480 of 2026
Date: 01.04.2026
Between:
Pathi Devender
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana,
Through SHO Panjagutta PS,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor (High Court),
High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad- 500066,
Email: pp.highcourt @ yahoo.com and another
...Respondents
ORDER
This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.161 of 2026 of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.1 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').
2. Heard Mr.Midhun Kumar Allu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents.
2
3. The specific allegation against the petitioner/accused is that he has procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 10.03.2026, the petitioner was found in possession of 65 bags of PDS rice each weighing about 50 kgs.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without there being any complaint from any beneficiary, alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging the petitioner for prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations, even taken at his face value cannot be sustained against the petitioner. Further, this Court, in Crl.P.Nos.5709 of 2019 and 3349 of 2015, while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the offences alleged against the petitioners therein could not be continued and accordingly quashed the proceedings. The petitioner is also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
5. The learned 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 of the EC Act and requested to pass appropriate orders.
3
6. Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioner has procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer.
7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that:
"There is no averment indicating that the petitioner in any way deceptively induced the beneficiaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitioner and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violation of a lawful direction or contract. In the absence of essential factors, on the face of prosecution, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law".
8. The facts and circumstances of the present case also similar 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 petitioner herein.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in FIR No.161 of 2026 of Panjagutta Police Station, 4 Hyderabad, against the petitioner/accused No.1, are hereby quashed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO 31.03.2026 Note: Issue CC in a week b/o vsl