Sameer Khan, 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 2026-04-21. Sameer Khan, v. The State of Telangana,. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 3303 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENry FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NA/ENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6007 OF 2026 BETWEEN: Sameer Khan, S/o. Anwar Khan, Age. XX years, Occ. Driver, R/o. H. No. 1- 70130, Perkit village, Armoor Mandal, Nizamabad District. Petitioner/Accused AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana. 2. G. Vinod, S/o. Not Known, Occ. Govt Official Non Gazetted, R/o. Armoor, Nizamabad District, Telangana State. ... Respondents Petition under Section 528 of B. N. S. S praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in FIR No. 207 of 2026 on the file of the SHO, P. S. Armoor, Nizamabad District in so far as petitioner / Accused. l. A. NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of B. N. S.
S 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 against the petitioner/Accused in FIR No. 207 of 2026 on the file of the SHO, P. S. Armoor, Nizamabad District 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 A. 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 I IN I HIGH COURT FOR THE ST ATE OF'TE GANA A THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO N of 2 Between: Sameer Khan ... Petitioner AND The Sta. te of Telangana, and another Respondents 'llhis Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceerlings in FIR No.
207 of 2026 of Armoor police Station, Nizamabad District, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) ofthe Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Section 7-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act'). 2. . Fleard Mr. A. Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitiorrer and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. l . i I I 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 13. 04. 2026, the petitioner was found in possession of 25. 45 quintals of PDS rice. 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.
I The altegations, even taken at his face value cannot be sustained against the petitioner. Further, this Court, in Crl. P. Nos. 5709 of 2Ol9 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. /, \ t 6. Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate that any person contrav,ines with the production, supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the li I petitioner has procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after \ supply from the dealer. \ l \ 7.
A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. P. No. 7227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that: "I here is no avennent ind. icating that the Wtitioner in any way de,:eptively induced the bene/iciaries to part with the supplied pDS rice or the beneficiary entrusled the PDS rice purchased by them with the pe,titioner and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted b their ow use or used it in violation of a lawlul direction or contract- In the absence of essential factors, on the lace ofprosecution, this Court. finds it rc be afit case to exercise thejuisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023- Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law". '[he 8. 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 tc exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the pet itioner herein. 9.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in FIR No. 207 of 2026 of Armoor Police Station, T n Nizamabad District, against the petitioner/accused, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD'. K. BHAVANI SWAMY I ASSISTANT REGTSTRAR i / / ,/TRUE COPY/ OFFICER To, 1 The Judicial First Class Magistrate At Armoor. 2. The Station House Officer, Armoor Police Station, 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. tOUTl 4. One CC to SriA. Divakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies GNK'KA Ft- , e HIGH COURT DATED i 21110412026 Tl'iE s 2S fiPB 2026 J- ORDER CRLP. No. 6007 of 2026 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION g . '@ #fr
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.