Ekkirala Prudhvi 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 2026-02-20. Ekkirala Prudhvi v. State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 33031 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2383 OF 2026 Between: 't. Ekkirala Prudhvi, S/o Venkateswarlu, 30Yrs, Occ. Driver cum owner of Ashok Leyalnd Trolly. No TSO4UA 5357, H. no 5-15-l,Batthulapalli Vilage, Khammam District,AP-507209. 2. Chityala Rama Kanaka Chary, S/o Satyanarayana chary, Age. 35Yrs, Occ. Business, Rl/o 3-72,Munukulla Village,Tiruvuru Mandal, Munukulla, Krishna District AP-S21235 3. Pasumarthy Shashi Kumar alias Shashi, S/o Pasumarthy Rama Rao, Age . about 28Yrs Occ. Business, R/o H. no3-26/'l,Chandrpatla Vilage of Kalluru mandal, Chandrupatla, Khammam,Telanagana-S07209 4. Karukula Narasimha Rao, S/o Satyam, Age. about 40 Yrs, Munnurukapu, Hamali, R/o Chinna korukondi vilage of Kaluru Mandal, Khammam, AP,507209 5. Shaik Husain, S/o Mera Saheb, Occ. driver cum owner of Lorry No.
AP16D0744, Rl/o Porumamila vilage and Mandal, YSR Kadapa Dist, AP. 6. Janyavula Sudhakar alias Srinu, S/o Chalapathirao, Age. 34 yrs, Occ. Business, R/o HNo 3C-17-1011, Padamara Veedhi, Kacheri chavidi, Eluru, Eluru,west Godavari Dist, Andhra Pradesh. 534001. ... Petitioners/Acc used AND 1. State of Telangana, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad 2. Mr. Rathod Ravi Kumar, s/o Late Chandraiah, Age 37 years, Occ. Deputy Tahasildar, Civil Supplies Khammam Rural l/C Sathupali, R/o RoadNo-1,Sai Prabhath Nagar Pedda Thanda Colony, Khammam Rural. ... RespondenUDefacto Complainant Petition under section 482 of cr. p. c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandurn of Grounds of criminal petitionl the High court may be preasea to gylPH the. proceedings in c. c. No. 366 ot zoz't on the fire or the court ot the Additional First orass Judicial Magistrate at sathupally against the petitionersliccusea and to pass l. A.
NO: 2OF 2O26 Petition unrier Section 492 of cr. p. c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandurn of Grounds petitionl of Criminal the High Court ma/ Oe pfeaseO to grant srAY of arr further. proceedings incruding the appearance of the petitioner/ accused in c. C. No. 366 ot 2021 on the file of thE court of the Additional luiiciai rirst class Magistrate, at sathupaily, pending disposar of the above criminar p"tiii"", pass "ra This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petiti,:n and upon hearing the arguments of sri c Vivekanand, Advocate for the Petitioner and the sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additionar pubric prosecutor for the state of rerangana on beharf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for Respondent No. ll. The Court made the fottowing: ORDER IN TIIE HIGH COURT FOR'THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT I{YDERABAD . tHT. I. TONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2383 of 2026 Date:20. 02.
2026 Between: Ekkirala Prudhvi and 5 others ... Petitioners/Accused Nos. l to 6 AND 'l'elangana, State of Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad and another. ... Respondents ORDER 'l'his Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 366 of 2021 pending on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate. at Sathupally, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. l to 6, for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short '[PC') and Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for shoft 'EC Act') 2. I{eard Mr. C. Vivekanand, learned counsel appearing for the petiti,rners and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additi<lnal Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. l. 3. The specific allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos.
l to 6 is that they have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for wrongful gain and that on I3. 0:i. 2021 at abour 06. 00 hours, the petitioners were tbund in possr:ssion of 120 bags of PDS rice containing 5 I . 60 quintals. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that without there bein;3 any complaint from any beneficiary, alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a crirninal intent and charging the petitioners for prosecution is untenable and irnproper. The allegrations. even taken at their face value cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Further, this Court, in Crl. P. Nos. 5709 of 2019 and 3349 of 2015, while considering rhe same siruarion, categorically observed that the offences alleged against the petit. ioners therein could not be continued and accordingly quashed the rroceedings. 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 offence 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. 6. Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities in this regard is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer. 1. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. P. No. 7227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that: "'['hcrc is no averntent inclicating that the petitioner in any u'a. v claccptivcly inducad the beneficiaries to part with the supplied I'DS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice purclrused by them v,ith tha petitioner and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted lo their ov,n use or used it in violation of a lawful direction or coiltract.
In thc ubsence of essential factors, on the face of proseculion, this C'ourt Jinds it t<t be afit case lo exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS. 2023. Thus, continuance of pt'oceedings againsl the petitioner i. s abue 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 petitioners herein. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and rhe proceedings in C. C. No. 366 of 2021 pending on the file of the learn,:d Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Sathupally, agairst the petitionerslaccused Nos. l to 6, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/. N. CHANDRA SEKHAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Additional Judicial First class Magistrate at sathupally 2.
The Station House Officer, Kalloor Police Station, Khammam District. 3. One CC to Sri C Vivekanand, Advocate [OpUCf 4- Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] fi, 5. Tvuo CD Copies 4))- BA HIGH COUF. T DATED: 2010212026 ; :'\. -. +i'. _" I fit: ii r"... i. $3:: \ '. -. ' u,.. '. j :\, (' 'i" () g n r{rfl ? _07fr ORDER t' i:.. * . r\€. i:l * CRLP. No. 2383 of 2026 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ,| ^, [. r ,i I tv-, L
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.