Mr. Guguloth Sakru, v. 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 2026-03-17. Mr. Guguloth Sakru, v. State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3920 OF 2026 Between: 1. Mr. Guguloth Sakru, S/o Mangya, Age. 60 years, Occ: Driver, Caste. ST- Lambadi, R/o Chinna Golkonda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Rangareddy District. 2. Tejavath Hanku, S/o Bichya, Age: 49 years, Occ: Driver, Caste. ST-Lambadi, R/o Mansanpally x Road, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ... Petitioners/Accused 1 & 2 AND 1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. 2. Sri. V. Prasad, SubJnspector of Maheshwaram PS, Future City Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District. ...
RespondenUDefacto Complainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings and Return of Properties seized in Crime No. 95 of 2026 on the file of PS Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy District against the petitioners/ accused 1&2. l. A. NO: 2OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in Crime No. 95 of 2026 on the file of PS Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the above criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. C. Vivekanand, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents.
The Court made the following: ORDER TN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE,OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3920 of 2026 Date:17. 03. 2026 Between: Mr. Gugulo':h Sakru and another . Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderaberd and another .. Respondents ORDER This criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 95 of 2026 of Maheshwaram police Station, Ranga Redcy District, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. l and 2, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) of th,: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short "BNS') and Section 7 of the Essential commodities Acr, 1955 . EC (for short Act'). 2. Heard Mr. c. vivekanand, learned counsel for the petitioners ' 'r? and Mr. Jith:ender Rao veeramalla, learned Additional public Prosecutor frrr respondents 3.
The specific allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos'l and 2is that they have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 08. 03. 2026, the petitioners were found in possession of l2quintals of PDS rice' 4. Learned 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 value 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 atteged 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 Additional 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 EC Act and requested to pass appropriate orders' \n r' 3. 6. Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate that any person contravenr:s with the production, supply, distribution and trade of essential c,ommodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply frorn the dealer. \ \ 7. A c:oordinate Bench of this court in crr. p. No. 7227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that: "There is no averntent indicating that the petilioner in any way deceptuely induced the beneficiaries to part with the supplied pDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice purchased by rhem with the petitior:er and they dishonestly misappropriatecl or converted to their own us2 or used it in violation of a lowful direction or contract.
In the absence of essential facrors, on the face of prosecution, this courr finds it to be afit case to exercise the jurisdiction under secrion 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance ofproceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of lau,". 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 petitioners herein. 9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is arlowed and the proceedings in crime No. 95 of 2026 of Maheshwaram police Station, Ranga Reddy Disffict, against the petitionefs/accused Nos. l and 2, are hereby quashed Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. A. SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /,TRUE COPY/ G SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Junior Civil Judge-cum-Xvll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Maheshwaram. Z.
The Station House Officer, Maheshwaram Police Station, Future City District' 3. One CC to Mr. C. Vivekanand, Advocate [OPUC] pUBLIC pRosECUTOR 4. Two CCs to High court for the state of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 5. Tritro CD Copies Kam/PSL M ? / HIGH COURT '1710312026 DATED i t irE SI4 C} u 2. 2 5 I'lAfl 2020 ORDER * ... {- CRLP. No. 3920 of 202G ' tg;,.. :1i-t i1 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION KS 1u1r/%
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.