Abdul Raheem, v. The State of Telangana,
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-04-28. Abdul Raheem, v. The State of Telangana,. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 3303 J IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6548 OF 2026 BETWEEN: Abdul Raheem, S/o. Abdul Azeez, Age. 63 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o H. No 5-712, Athargally, Balkonda Mandal, Nizamabad District, Telangana State. ... Petitioner/Accused AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana. 2. Mujuge Srinivas, S/o Narayana, Age. 50 years, Occ. Dy. Tahsildar (CS), R/o. Jemmanjetty Gally, Armoor Town, Nizamabad District, Telangana State ... Respondents Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memolandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in CC No. 499 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Judicial First-Class Magistrate at Armoor. l. A.
NO: 2OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Pelition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings against the petitioner/Accused in CC No. 499 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Judicial First-Class Magistrate at Armoor pending disposal of the main criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER INTHE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELAI{GANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6548 of 2026 Date: 28. 04. 2026. Between: Abdul Raheem .. Petitioner AND The State ofTelangana and another ...
Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 499 of 2021 on the file of the leamed Principal judicial First Class Magistrate, Armoor. 2. Heard Mr. Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. l. 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 01. 09. 2021, the petitioner was found tn possession of 5. 95 quintals of PDS rice. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without there being any complaint fiom any beneficiary, alleging that the . \ . ,t*s. , trr- ' *4tt \ \l ril , "i \l \i . \! rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and 'rl 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. 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 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 flce 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 ayerntent indicaling that the petitioner in any way deceptively induced the benefciaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or lhe beneficiary entn$ted the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitioner arul they dishonestly misappropriated or converted lo their own use or used it in tiolution ofa lawful direction or contrdct. In the ubsence of essential . factors, on the face of prosecution, this Court fnds it to be afit cose to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 ofBNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse ofprocess 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 C. C. No. 499 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal judicial First Class Magistrate, Armoor, against the petitioner/accused, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. 5U'- K. B NI WAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECION OFFTCER To, Principal Judicial First_Class I ]!. ," Magistrate at Armoor. 2 The Station House officer, BarkonJ""p"ii"" dtrtion, Nizamabad District. to the Public prosecutoi uG't-c""rrt oi rer;;s;;;'"riyil,ru"o ' IJ;. i"" 4. One CC to Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD Copies pAy cc - To HIGH COURT DATED: 2810412026 -i\ i '- . ,'1,, -'l4r-\ '(. ! 't ,. , . s it ti7 t. a ( \ _-( ORDER CRLP. No. 6548 ot 202G ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION rg) ct? \I A,L ? \qa
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.