CRLP/16813/2026 of Barnelikar Chandrakanth Vs The State of Telangana on 12 October 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.l04 of 2023, on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Yellandu.

2. Heard Mr.G.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional public Prosecutor fbr respondents.

3. The specific allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 3 is that they have procured PDS rice fiom the beneficiaries at Between:

cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 27.09.2022, the petitioners were found in possession of 100 quintals ofPDS rice.

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners for prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations, even taken at their face vaiue cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Further, this Court, in Crl.P.No.5709 of 2019, 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 petitioners are also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. The learned Additionai Public Prosecutor submits that as per prosecution, the offences said to have been committed by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act') and requested to pass appropriate orders

6. Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate that any person contravenes wit!, the production, supply, distribution and trad" of essential commodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply fi'om 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 qyerment indicqling thdt the petilioner in any wery deccptively induced the beneficiaies to part with the suppliecl pDS rice or the benefciary entrusted the PDS nce purchased by rhem uith the petitioner dnd they dishonestly misappropriated or conyerted to their o\fn Ltse or used it m violotion of d lawful direction or contrqct. In the absence of essenlial factors, on the face of prosecution, this Court fncls it to be aJit utse to exercise the juisdiction under Seclion 52g ofBNSS, 2023. Thus, rcntinudnce of proceedings against the petitioner i.; abuse of proce.ss of law".

8. The facts and circumstances of the present case also similar

k) those in the above case and hence, this Court finds it to be a ht case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowcd and the proceedings in C.C.No. 104 of 2023, on rhe flle of the Additional J udicial First Class Magistrate at yellandu, against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, are hereby quashed. I

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /iTRUE COPY/i ll- sEct(o To, N OFFICER '1 . The Judicial First Class [rlaglstrate at Yellandu

2. The Station House Officer, Tekulapally police Station, bhadradri Kothagudem

3. One CC to SRI GUDISA ANIL KUIVAR, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies ADK/ABK I

HIGH COURT DATED: 1211012026

ORDER

GRLP.No.16813 of 2026 ALLOWING THE CRLP o L) 1:^ c STAfa ,7 ocl2u[ Yzo Ittr \\ rAt\:\ i '1 \6