[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
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.
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.
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,
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
