Nikhil Yadav Totavar vs. State Of Telangana

Original PDF →
CRLP/4058/2026HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01017333202605 May 2026Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO158 pages

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRLP.Nos.2809 957 981 1,620 2508 2878 ?453 2856 2857 2977 2928 2944 3028 3029 307 4. 37 42. 3143. 37M. 3745 3206 3426, 3433. 3587. 3921., 4024, 4027, 4058.4t45.4249.4250. 4255 4'.256 4:257. 4259 4260 4261. 4316 4361, 4383 4482 4J.83 4J.85 4486 4558 4559 4624 466,0. 462. 478't.51 5220 5252. 5505.5986. 6057. 6251.. 6385 AND 6863 0F 2026 CRLP NO: 2f,09 OF 20'26 Between: Kasam Sathvik, S/o. Kasam Jagan, aged about 25 years, Occ Managing Director, M/s. Chamundeswari Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., R/o. H. No. 14-80, Alankar Road, Beside Canara Bank, Ward-9, Suryapet, Suryapet District, Telangana -508213. AND 'Petifioner' 1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad, through Kethapally Police Station, Nalogonda District, Telangana. 2. Mr. B. Rampathi, S/o. Bheekya, aged about 47 years, Occ District Manager, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Nalgonda District, Telangana. - ...Respondents. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crirninal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash thc FIR No. 32 of 20% dated ?i.02.2026, registered with KethaPally Police Station, Nalgonda District. I.A NO:2OF2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may bc pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuant to the registration of FIR No.32 of 2O26, dated 2i.02.2026, registered with Kethapally Police Statiory Nalgonda District, including the investigatiory arrest and any coercive actions against the Petitironer. I.A. NO:3OF2026 Be[ween: Mr. B. Rampathi, S/o. Bheekya, aged about 47 years, Occ District Manager, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Nalgonda District, Telangana. ..Petitioner/ Respondcnt No.2. lN Crl.P.No.2809 / 2026 Anci ,.. Kasam Sathvik, S/o. Kasam Jagan, aged about 25 years, Occ Managing Director, M7.=;. (lhamundcswari Agro lndusrries pvt. Ltd., R/o. H. No. 1-4-g0, Alankir Road, Beside (lanara Bank, Ward-9, Suryapet, Suryapet District, Telangana _50g213. 2 state orrerangana, Rep by its pubric o.";l'i1'.:*:il15::lT:ii["t;::"Y "'e/2026' Flydcrabad, through Kethapally police Station, Nalogonda District. Tela"ngana . Respondents/ Respondent No.1 in Crl.p.No.2809/ 2026 Petition under Scction 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lv{emorandum of Grounds of Criminal petitiory tni uign Court may be pleased to vacated tte interim order passed in Crr.p.No.280g/2026, dismisi the Criminal petition. - ^ This letition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sii sarrnapaneni Lohit, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of the Atlvocate Ceneral appearing for the Respondent No.2. Berween: !h Ravi Kanth, Proprietor of M/s. 3RS Food products (Rudra Rice Milr), occ- Rice Mi[, S/,>.Ramesh, Age. 30 years, R/o.D.No.4-3, Hanuman Temple, Damerakunta Village, Ka:aram Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District _ 505 503. CRLP NO: 957 oF 2026 AND 7. ...Petitioner/ Accused. The state'of Telangana, rep. by its pubric prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad- Sri S.Rabhavender, l)istrict Manager, Telangana State Civil Supply a";ff.tff#;t. Bhu palpa tly Jayashankar tshupalpally District. ...Respondent/ Defacto Complainant. 2 Petitio^ under Secti.n 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Mernorandum o[ Grounds of Criminar petitiory ttr" Higt court may be pleased to euash in FtR No.95 of 2024 on the File of p.s Kataram, Bhupalpally oisrrict in the interest of iusti,:e. I.A. \O: 2OIt 2026 Petition under Se<'tion 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Merr'orandum of Grounds.f Criminal petitioru the High court may be pleased to grant r_tuy "r all furrher procccrlings, in FIR No. 95 of 2d24 on the i.itu or p.s Kataram, Bhupalpaily District. This Petititrn comirtg on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of (-rrmirral P.titrrrn arrtl upr,p.hcaring tnE ,rgr*I"t, of Sri K.Buchi Babu, Advocate for the p'''ririoner anrr the pubric I'rosecu',o. "r-, iJrri of the Respondent No.l and of the Advo,:atc Gt.nt,ral appcaring on bchalf of ,f," n"rflra"r,t fVo.Z CRLP NO: 987 OF 2026 Between: Smt. Kottam Veena @ K.Veena, W/o Kottam Vamshidhar Reddy, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Business, Proprietor of M/ s. Kottam Industries (Mill Code. 43207), R/ o H.No. 2-24, Sankireddypally Village Kothakota Mandal, Wanaparthy District, Telangana 509381. .,.Petitioner/ Accused. AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kothakota, Wanaparthy District, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Kothakota, Wanaparthy District, Telangana. 3. The Assistant Manager (Gen), Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd (TCSCSCL), Wanaparthy District, Telangana. ...Respondents. 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 Call for the records in FIR No.25 of 2026 date,d 27.01.2026 on the file of the Police Station Kothakota, Wanaparthy District and Quash the same against the Petitioner Accused. I.A. NO: 2OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitiory the High Court may bc pleased to STAY all further proceedings, including the arrest of the Petitioner, in FIR No.25 of 2026 dated 27 .01 .2026 on the f ile of Police Station Kothakota, Wanaparthy District. I A. NO: JOF 2026 Bctween: Thc Assistanr Manager (Gen), Telangana state civil supplies Corporation Ltd (TGSCSCL), Wanaparthy District, Telangana. And ..petitioner/ Respondent NO.3. 1 Smt. Kottam Veena @ K.Veena, @o Kottam Vamshidhar Reddy, Aged about 34 Ililr 9^.: Business, Proprietor of M/s. Kottam Industries (Mill Cod1. a3201), R/ o H.No. 2-24, Sankireddypally Vilage, Kothakota Mandal, Wanaparthy Dlstrict, Telangana 509381. The Srate of Telangana, Rep. by its pubtic prosecuror. ,*;l;iT#H:{,::"ff"::: officer, Police station Kothakoia, wanaparthy District, High court for the state of Telangana, Hyderabad. The Station House Officer, police Station Kothakota, Wanaparthy District, Telarrgana- ..Respondents. 2 3 Petition under S€ction 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in tf-. Nlemorandum of crounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacated tlre interim orders dated 02/ 03 /2026 in Crl.p.No.981 of 2026. This Pe'tition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds oI Criminal Petition a^d upon hearing the arguments of sri BHARGAVAKRISHNA.L, A,lvocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and of the Advocate General appearing for Respondent No.3. CITLP NO: 7620OF 2026 Between: Battini Meena Reddy @ B Meena Reddy, w/o B. Devaraj, Aged about 40 years, occ. Business, Proprietor of M/s sfuinidhi Rice Mill (Mill code. lrzgss), R7o u.No.s-rr- 51i52/303, Priyadarshini Nagar, Nirmal, Nirmal District, Telangana - 504106. ANID "'PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1. The state of Telangana,, Rep. by its public prosecutor, Through the Station House officer, Police station Bhainsa Rural, Nirmal District, Telangana. High Court for the State of Telangana, I{yderabad. il- The Statron House Officer, Police Station Bhainsa Rural, Nirmal District, Telangana. Ii. The Districr Manager, 'felangana state civil supplies Corporation Ltd (TGSCSCL), Nirmal Disrrict, 'l elangana . ... Respondents. Petition under Sectiorr 528 of UNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Mernorandum of Grounds ol Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Call for the records in FIR No.15 of 2026 dated 04.02.2026 on the file of the Police Station Bhainsa Rural, Nirmal District ancl Quash the same against the Petitioner/Accused. I.A. IJO: 2OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grouncls of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to sTAY all further proceedings, including the arrest of the Petitioner in connection with FIR No'15 of. 2026 dated 04-02.202(r orr the file of Police Station Bhainsa Rural, Nirmal District, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition. LA,NAiAF2A26 Between: Sri Ctr.Sudhak ar,S/o. Satv;rnaravana, The District Manager, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltcl ( |(;SCSLIL.), Nirmal Disrrict, Telangana' ..Respondent/ Petitioner. And 1. Battini Mec,na [ietitlv (r) B Mccna ltcddy, W/o B. Devaraj, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Business, Proprietor of M/ s Shrinidhi Rice Mill (Mill Code. 177955), R/o H.No.S_ 17-51/52/303, [)rivarla rshirri Nagar, Nirmal, Nirma] District, Telangana _ 504106. ..Respondent/ Petitioner. 2 The State of Telangana,, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Tfuough the Starion House officer, Police station Bhainsa Rural, Nirmal District, Telangana. High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. The Station House Officer, Police Station Bhainsa Rural, Nirmal Disrric! Telangana. ..Respondent/ Respondent Nos.1 & 2. 3 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitiory the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 02.03.2026 passed in cRLP.No.1620 of 2026 and dismiss the criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Perition and upon hearing the arguments of sri BHARGAVAKRISHNA.L, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 & 2 and of the Advocate General appearing for Respondent No.3. CRLP NO: 2608 OF 2026 Between: Mohd. Waheed, s/ o. Mohd. Ishag (Owner of M/s. Fauziya Traders Hangara, Potangal(M)) Aged about 65 yearg occ. Business, R/o. Pothangal Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District- ...ETITI.NER/ACCUSED. AND 1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad through SHO PS Bodhan Rural, Nizamabad District. M.Srikanth Reddy, s/o. not known, Aged not known to the Petitioners, Occ. Emp I oyee, Dis rric t Manager, TSCSCL, Nizamabad-503001 ...Respondents/Complai nant. LA. NO:1 oF 2026 LA. NO:2 oF 2026 Between Pctition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of crimina.r petition, tie High Court may be pleased to quash the FIR No.28 of 2026 on the file of ps Koragiri, Nizamabad aatiati-oz-2026, for the offences registered u/s.376(5),37g(4),r/w.3(siBNS, 7 ECA, andto pass such other order or orders as this Hon'bre Court maydeem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2 Perition under secrion 12g oj B-ryss praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminar peuii".u ,r,? High_cor.t may be preased to stay a, f1rff1' nror""dings in FIR No-28 of 2026." ,r,"]ir" .r r., Kotagiri, Nizamabad dated 17_ 02-2026, for the ofrcnces registered u/s. zte(s,1,iii1+1, ,1*.a1E1 aNs, , Ed, including arrest of the petirioner, pending dispo*l "f th";;;triminal petirion. M.Srikanth Retldy, Disrrict !1nager, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., (TGSCSCL), Nizamabad-503001. ..Petitioner/Respondent No.i Arrd 1. Mohd. Waheed, s,/o- Mohd. Ishaq, (Owner of M/s. F auziva Traders Hangara, Potangal(M)) Aged about 65 years, occ. Business, R/o. Pothangal Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District. ..Respondent/ Petitioner. 2. State of Telangana, Itep. by its Public Prosccutor, High Court at Hyderabad through SHO t€ Bodhan Rural, Niz.amabad District. ..Respondent/Respondent No.1. 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 vacate the order d.ated 02/03/2026 in cRLP.No,2608 of 2026 and dismissing the Criminal Pehtion. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Clriminal Petition and upon hcaring the arguments of Sri K.Durga Prasad, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on bchalf of the Respondent No.1 and of the Adv ocate General appearing for llespondent No.2. CRLP NO: 2878 OF 2026 Betw'een: Konda laxmaiah, S/ o. Gopaiah, a11erl about 70 years, Occ. Managing Partner, Ram laxnun Paraboiled Ricc Mill t-t(I., It/o. H No.6-2-920, Ramagiri, Nalgonda Town and District. ..,Petitioner/ Accused. AND 1. The state of Telanl5ana, Ilep, bv [,ublic Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at HYderabad 'ResPondent' 2.B.Rampathi,S/o.Bheekya,allcdabout4Tyears,Occ'DistrictManager(FAC)'Civil Supplies Corporation, Nalgontla Town and District' ...ResPondent/ ComPlainant' Petition under sechorl 52ll of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crin-rina[ pctir,on, the High Court may be pleased to quash theproceedingsinFllt.NoT5/2026tlnthcfileP.s.NalgondallTown,againstthe petitioner/ Accused herein in tlrt: itrttrt'st o[ Justice and equity' I.A. NO: 2OF 2026 Petition under Section 52u of BNSS praving that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Crouucls of Crrnrinal l)etition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all furi:her proceeciings in [rtli No.75/2026 on the file P.s. Nalgonda-II Town, agairst the petitioner/ Accused hercin inclutling rppcarance of the petitioners and pending disposal of the (lriminal Pctition I.A. NO: 3OF 2026 Befween: B.Rampathi, S/o. Bheekya, aged about 47 years, Occ. District Manager, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation, Nalgonda DistricL Telangana. ..Petitioner/ Respondent No.2- And 1. Konda Laxmaiah, S/o. Gopaiah, aged about 70 years, Occ. Managing Partner, Ram laxman Paraboiled Rice Mill Ltd., R/o. H.No.6-2-920, Ramagiri, Nalgonda Town and District. ..Respondent/ Petitioner. The State of Telangana, Rep, by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. ..Respondent/ Respondent No.1. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitiory the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 05.03.2026 passed in CRLP.No.2818 of 2026 and dismiss the Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri VENKATARAMANAIAH.K, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of the Advocate General appearing for Respondent No.2. CRLP NO: 2853OF 2026 Between: M/s Sri I-akshmi Venkateshwara Rice Mill, Raigudem, Nelakondapally, Rep by its proprietor M. Rama Rao, S/o Venkateswarlu Mekala, Aged about 55 Years, Occ.Business, R/o H.No. 3-51, Indira Gandli center, Nelakondapally, Raigudem, Clheruvu Madharam, Khammam District. ...Petitioner/ Accused. AND 1. The State of Telangana, through P.S. Nelakondapally, Rep by is Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2. G. Srilatha, Occ- Dislrict Manager, Civil supplies Corporatiory IDOS Khammam, R/o Khammam Disfrict. ...Respondents/ Complainant. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying ttrat in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitiory the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against rhe petitioner in FIR.No.47/2026 dt.24.02.2026 on the file of P.s. Nelakondapalli, for the offence U /kc.316(2),316(5), 318(4), 67(2) of BNS and section 7 of Essential cornmodities Act. 2 I.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 stay of all further Proceedings against the pctitioncr in FIR.No.47/2026 dt.24.02.2026 on the file of P.S. Nelakondapalli, for the offence U/Sec.376(2),316(5), 318(4), 67(2) of BNS and section 7 rf Essential commodities Act pcncling disposal of the above criminal petition. I.r\. NO: 3 OF 2026 Br:tween G. Srilatha, Occ. District Manager, Telangana Civil Supplies Corporatiory Khammam, Khammam District ..Petitioner/Respondent NO.2. M/s Sri l-akshmi Venkateshwara Rice Mill, Raigudem, Nelakondapally, Rep by its proprietor M. Rama Rao, S/o Venkateswarlu Mekala, Aged about 55 years, Occ.Business, R/o H.No. 3-51, Indira Gandli center, Nelakondapally, Raigudem, Clheruvu Madharam, Khammam District. .. Respondent/ Petitioner. The State of Telangana, through P.S. Nelakondapally, Rep by is public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. ..Respondent/ Respondent No.1. And 1. 2 Petition under Section 52tt of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the order dated 06/ 03/2026 on CRL.I'. N o.2853 of 2026 and dismiss the Criminal petition, This Petition coming on for lrcaring, up.n perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of t-riminal Petition and upon hearinll thc arguments of sri praveen Kumar veerjala, Ad'vocate for the Petitioner and the Pubtic Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of the Advocate General appcaring for Respondent No.2, CRI-P NO: 2856 OF 2026 Behveen: sanka Rajendra Prasad, S/ o.S. Rajeswararao, Aged about 52 years, occ . Business, R/o.H.No.8-2-50, Marker Road, Bhadrachalam post, Bhadradri Kothagudem Distric! T.G. Bikkumalla Hanumantharao, sf o B.suralah, Aged about 54 years, occ . Business R/o.H.No.11-17-77, Flat No 201, NMR Vagrleyi Residency, Road No.1, Telephone Colony, R.K.Puram, Saroornallar, ttanga Recldy District, T.G_ Mashetty Kalpana, */" y y:rh:_Krishna, Aged about 54 years, Occ . Business, R/o.Flat No.401. I{No6-2_831, Meerbagh Cjony, Srinivasa T;*;;; fVJg""a, Town and District, fciang.rna Statt.. Fi:H,t"X;-?;J:'xl,,V"''-Darnodar' Aged about 53 vears, occ Business and District, Terangana r,n,l,t*ttt' Near T-i'D Kalyanamandapu*, rvrrgondu*io-., 4 5. Edukulla Tharun, S/o.E.Damodar, Aged about 27 years, Occ Business, R/o.H.No.6-5-778, Beat Market, Near TTD Kalyanamandapam, Nalgonda Town and District, Telangana State. ...Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2 & 4 to 6. AND 1. The State of Telangana., Through S.H.O, P.S. Chityal, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High court at Hyderabad, Hyderabad. 2. Sri B.Rampathi, S/o.Bheekya, Aged about 47 years, Occ.Working as District Manager, TGSCSCL, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. ...Respondents/ Defacto Complainant. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circurnstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the Criminal Proceedings against the Petitioners/ Accused No.1,2 & 4 to 6 in Crime No.3E ot2l26, dt.22.02.2026 on the file oI Chityal Police Starion, Nalgonda District. I.A. NO: 1,OF 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 including arrest of the Petitioners/Accused No.1, 2 & 4 to 6 in Crime No.38 of 2026, dt.22.02.2026 on the file of Chityal Police Station, Nalgonda District, pending disposal of thc Criminal Petition. Between: Sri B.Rampathi, S/o.Bheekya, Agcd about 47 years, Occ.Working as District Manager, TGSCSCL, Nalgonda, Nalgonda Distric t. ..Petitioner/Respondent No.2 And 1. Sanka Rajendra Prasad, S/ o.S.Rajeswararao, Aged about 52 yeart Occ . Business, R/o.H.No.8-2-50, Market Road, Bhadrachalam Post, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, T.G. Bikkumalla Hanumaniharao, S/o.B.Suralah, Aged about 54 years, Occ . Business R/o.H.No.11-11.-17, Flat No.201, NMR Vagdeyi Residency, Road No.1, Telephone Colony, R.K.Puram, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District T.G. Mashetty Kalpana, W/o.M.Radha Krishna, Aged about 54 years, Occ . Business, R/o.Flat No.401, H.No.6-2-831, Meerbagh Colony, Srinivasa Towers, Nalgonda Town and District, Telangana State. Edukulla Manjulatha, W/o.E.Damodar, Aged about 53 yearg Occ Business R/o.H.No.6-5-178, Beat Market, Near TTD Kalyanamandapam, Nalgonda Town and District, Telangana State. 5. Edukulla Tharun, S/o.E.Damodar, Aged about 27 years, Occ Business, R/o.H.No.&5-178, Beat Market, Near TTD Kalyanamandapam, Nalgonda Town and District, Telangana State. ..Respondents/Petitioners No.1,2 & 4 to6. The State of Telangana., Through S.H.O, P.S. Chityal, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High court at Hyderabad, Hyderabad 2 3 4 5 6 I.A. NO: 2OF 2026 Respondent/ Respondent No 1 Petition undcr 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 vacate thr: interim orders dated 05 /03 / 2026 in CRLp.No.28s6of 2026 and dismiss the criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri C.I{ari preeth, Advocate for thr: Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of the Advocate General appearing for Respondent No.2. CR LP NO: 2857 OF 2026 I.A. I.JO:3 OF 2026 Between: Pa<lma Kandukuri, w/o.K.Mahender, Aged about 57 years, occ.Business, R/o. H.No.6-5- 163/1, Raveendra Nagar, Nalgonda-508 001, Telangana State. AND ... petitioner/ Accused No.3. 1- The state of relangana, Through s.H.o, p.s. Chityal, Rep. by its public prosecutor, High court at Hyderabad, Hyderabad. 2. sri B Rampathi, srlo.Bheekya, Aged about 47 years, occ.working as District Manager, TGSCSCL, Nalgonda, Nalgonda Disrrict. .. Responden ts/ Defacto Complainant. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Mernorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, thc High Court may be pleased to quash the Criminal Proceedings against the petitioner/ Accused No.3 in brime No.3g of 2026, dt.2:.1.02.2026 on the file of Chityal police Station, Nalgonda Disrrict I.A. NO: zOF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Menrorandum of Grounds of Criminar petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings against the petitioner/ Accused No3 in ^Crime No.3g of 2026. dt.22.02.2026 on the file of Chityal police station, Nalgonda District, pending disposal of the Criminal petition. Befween: sri B.Rampathi, s/o.Bheekya, Aged about 47 years, occ.working as District Manager, 'ICSCSCL, Nal gonda, Nalgonda Disrricr. Ancl I Peri tioner/ Respondent No.2. Padma Kandukuri, W/o.K.Mahendcr, Agcd about 57 vcars, Occ.Business, R/o. H.No.6_5_163/1, Raveendra N"8.r, N;t8;;;rffi;i; Telangana stare. rhe.StatcolTelangana,JhrouphslI() Dq /-L:. -'Respondent/Petitioner. t rigr, .o,.i,,iilffJl;'r:1i;;i';' P s Chitvar, Rcp bv ,,' h,uri.'pl"#,1" .. Iicspondentr/ Ilcspondent No.1. ) ' 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 vacate the interim orders dated 05/A3/2026 passed in CRLP.No.2S57of 2026 and dismiss the Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C.HARI PREE-IH, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of the Advocate General appearing for Respondent No.2. CRLP NO: 2917 OF 2026 Between: Musku Ranjith Reddy @ M. Ranjith Reddy, S/o Musku Chinna Reddy, Aged about 33 years, Occ. Business, Proprietor of M/ s. Hanvika Rice Mill, R/ o.23, Sunkli, VTC. Sunkli, District Ntmal, Telangana - 504109. ...Petitioner/ Accused. AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, through The Station House Officer, Police Station Bhainsa Rural. Nirmal District, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officcr, Police Station Bhainsa Rural, Nirmal District Telangana. 3. Ch. Sudhakar, District Manager, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd (TGSCSCL), Nirmal District, Tclangana. ...Respondents. 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 Call for the records in FIR No. 22 of 2026 clated 77 /02/2026 on the file of the Police Station Bhainsa Rural, Nirmal District and Quash the samc- I.A. NO:2OF2026 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 STAY all further proceedings, including the arrest of the Petitioner, in FIR No.22 of 2026 d.ated 17.02.20% on the file of Police Station Bhainsa Rural, Nirmal Dishict. I.A. NO:3OF2026 Between: Ch. Sudhakar, S/o. Satyanarayana, agetl 47 years, Occ: Working as District Manager, Nirmal District, Telangana. ..Peritioner/Respondent No.3 And 1 Musku Ranjith Reddy @ M. Raniith Rcddy, S/o Musku Chirura Reddy, Aged about 33 years, Occ. Business, l)roprietor of M/s. Hanvika Rice Mi]I, R/ o.2-3, Sunkli, VTC. Sunkli, District Nirmal, Telangana - 504109. . . Respondent/ Petitioner No.1- 2- The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosec,tor, tl-rrough The Station Hous; Officer, Police Station Bhainsa Rural, Nirmal District, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 3. The station House officer, Police station Bhainsa Rural, Nirmal District, Telangana. ..Respondents/ Respondents. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Mt:morandum of crounds of Criminal Petitioru the High Court may b€ pleased to vacate th(' interim orders dated 02.03.2026 passed in CRLP.No.2917 of 2026 and dismiss the crirrinal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri IIHARGAVAKRISHNA.L, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 ar-rd of the Advocate General appearing for Respondent No.3. CRLP NO: 2928 OF 2026 Between: Korrda Venkanna, S/o. l-axmaiah aged about 43 years, Occ. Managing Partner Kanaka Mahalaxmi Paraboiled Rice Mill Ltd., R/o.H.No.G2-920, Ramagiri, Nalgonda Town and Disrrict. -..Petitioner/ Accused. AND 'l T he State of Telangana, Rep, by Public Prosecutor, High Courr o[ Judicature at I lyderabacl. .-Respondent. 2. B.Rampathi, S/o. Bheekya, aged abott 47 years, Occ. Disrricr Manager (FAC), Civil Supplies Corporation, Nalgonda Town and District. .-. Respondent/Complainant. Pctition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the cir<'umstances stated in the Mcnrorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitioru the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in FIR.No.76/2026 on the file P.s. Nalgonda, II-Town, against the petitLoner/ Accused herein. I.A. I'JO: 2OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Mcmorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further procecdings in FIR.No.z6/2026 on the file p.s. Nalgonda-ll T'own, against the ffi:,:;]X,{.#.lT:j*"t" including appearance of rhe petitioner and pending disposalof I.A NO:3 OF 2026 Betwg,-,n B.R,r nr pa thr. S/o. lJh€,pky2 s,ppri,',.-c;,;;'";;,,""'jX,ii;li::1::#:il";rs, o<c Disrricr rrranag,,r 1F'AC). civir Peti tioner/Respondent No-2. And 1. Konda Venkanna, S/o. laxmaiah aged about 43 years, Occ. Managing Partner Kanaka Mahalaxmi Paraboiled Rice Mill Ltd., R,ro.H.No.6-2-920, Ramagiri, Nalgonda Town and District. ..Respondent/ Petitioner. The State of Telangana, Rep, by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. ..Respondent/Respondent No.1. 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 vacate the interim orders dated 05/03/n26 in CRLP.NO.2928 of 2026 and dismiss the criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri VENKATARAMANAIAH.K, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of the Advocate General appearing for Respondent No-2. CRLPNO: D$OF2026 Between: Gattu Sravan, S/o. Swarajyam aged abofi 47 years, Occ.Managing Partner, Gouthami Paraboiled Rice MiIl Ltd., R/o. H.No.6-3-92/D, Ramagiri, Nalgonda Town and District. ...Petitioner/ Accused. AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep, by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. ..Respondent. 2. B.Rampathi, S/o. Bheekya, aged about 47 years, Occ. District Manager (FAC), Civil Supplies Corporation, Nalgonda Town and District. ... Respondent/ 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 in FIR.No.37 / 2026 on the file P.S. Nalgonda Rural, against the petitioner/ Accused herein in the interest of Justice and equity. I.A. NO: zOF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circurnstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the Fligh Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in FIR.No.37l 2026 on the file P.S. Nalgonda Rural, against the petitioner/ Accused herein including appearance of the petitioners and pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. 2. I.r\. NO:3Ot 2026 Be'tween: B.Rampathi, S/o. Bheekya, aged about 47 years, Occ_ District Manager (FAC), Civil Supplics Corporation, Nalgonda Town and District. A.d ..Petitioner/ Respondent No.2. 1. Catfu Sravan, S/o. Swarajyam aged about4T years, Occ.Managing Partner, Gouthami Paraboiled Rice Mill Ltd., R/o. H.No.6-3-92/D, Ramagiri, Nalgonda Town and District. ..Respondent/ Petitioner. 2. The State of Telangana, Rep, by Public Prosecutor, High Court of .f udicature at Hyderabad- ..Respondent/ Responcrent No.2. Petition under Sechon 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitiory the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 02/ 03 / 2026 in CRLP.No. 29M of 2026 and dismiss the Criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of (lriminal l)etition and upon hearing the arguments of sri vENKA'IAI{AMANAIAH.K, Adrrocate for thc Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of the Adv<xate General appearing for the Respondent No.2. CRLP NO: 3028 Ot- 2026 Betrvecn: Ratlrocl Dinesh, S/o ltathoci Ramesh, Aged about 25 years, occ. Business, proprietor of M/S. JSR RI(IE MILL, R/o 2-70/1, Marlagonda, Pardi (b), Actitabad, Andhra pradesh - 504103, Business Adclress. 30/3/2, Narsapur G Mandal, Nandan, Nirmal, Telangana - 504104 ANr) ..PIr.ilTIONEI{/ACCUSED. 1 The state of relangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Tfuough rhe station House Officer, Police Station Narsapur, Nirmal District, High C-ourt for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Narsapur, Nirmal District, 'felangana_ 3. Ch. Sudhakar, S/o Satyanarayana, District Manager, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd (TCSCrcL), Nirmal District, Telangana. ...Rcspondcnts. Petition uncler Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Mem,rrandum or cirouncrs of Crirninar petitioru *re High court may bc preased to Call for l|:#I:i'l:if,I:i.ffj a'JXr1ii"fl 21/02/202i on the rire or r;.,1;;." sration, LA. NO: 2 OF 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 STAY all further proceedings, including the arrest of the Petitioner, in FIR No. 30 of 2026 dated 27 /02/2026 on the file of Police Station Narsapur, Nirmal District, pending disposal of the above criminal petition. I.A. NO:3OF 2026 Berween: Ch. Sudhakar, S/o Satyanarayana, District Manager, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd CIGSCSCL), Nirmal District, Telangana. .. Peti rioner/ Respondent No.2. And 1 Rathod Dinesh, S,/ o Rathod Ramesh, Aged about 25 years, Occ. Business, Proprietor of M/S. ISR RICE MILL, R/o 2-70/7, Marlagonda, Pardi (b), Adilabad, Andhra Pradesh - 504103, Business Address. 30/3/2, Narsapur G Mandal, Nandan, Nirmal, Telangana - 504104. .. Respondent/ Petitioner. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Tfuough The Station House Officer, Police Station Narsapur, Nirmal District, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. The Station House Officer, Police Station Narsapur, Nirmal District, Telangana. ..Respondents/ Respondents. 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 vacate the interim orders dated 05.03.2026passed in CRLP.3028 of 2026 and dismiss the criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri BHARGAVAKRISHNA.L, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and of the Advocate General appearing for Respondent No.3. CRLP NO:3029OF 2f,26 Between: Chawan Rohidas @ Chowan Rohidas, S/o Chawan Khamna @ Khamna, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Business, Proprietor of M/S. SSDR RICE MILL, R/o 243/7, Marlagonda, Adilabad, Telangana-504103, Business Address. SY NO 30/3, Nandan Village, Narsapur4 Mandal, Nirmal District, Telangana - 504104. ... PETTTTONER/ ACCUSED. AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Narsapur, Nirmal District, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2- The Station House Officer; Police Station Narsapur, Nirmal District, Telangana. 2 3 Sri Clr- Sudhakar, S/o Satyanarayana, Aged 47 years, Diskict Manager, 'I'elangan- State Civil Supplies Corporation Lrd (TGSCSCL), Nirmal Disrrict, Telangana. ... Respondents. Petition under Scction 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to Call for the' records in FIR No.29 of 2026 dated 2z/02/2026 on the file of the police station Narsapur, Nirmal District ancl QUASH the same. I.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 srAy all further proceedings, including the arrest of the Petitioner, in FIR No.29 of 2026 dated 27 / 02/ 2026 on the file of Police station Narsapur, Nirmal Distric! pending disposal of the above criminal petition I.A. NO: 3OF 2026 Betrveen: Sri (lh. Sudhakar, S/ o Satyanaray Civ;l Supplies Corporation Ltd (T ana, Aged 47 Years, District Manager, Telangana State L), Nirmal District, Telangana. -.Petitioner/ Respondent No.3 Ancl l. Chawan llohiclas @ C-howan Rohidas, S/o Chawan Khamna @ Khamna, Aged about 50 ve ars, Occ. Business, Proprietor of M/S. SSDR RICE MILL, R/ o 2-43 / 7, Marlagonda, Adilabad, Telangana-504103, Business Address. Sy NO 30/3, Nandan Villagc, Narsapur-G Mandal, Nirmal District, Telangana - 504104. . ..Respondent/Petitioner. 2. The statc of 1'e[;rngana, Rcp. by its public prosecutor, Through rhe Station House officer, Police stati.n Narsapur, Nirmal District, High Court for the state of Telangana, Hyderabad. 3. The station Housc officer, Police station Narsapur, Nirmal District, Telangana. ..Respodent Nos.1 & 2. Petition utrder Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grountls of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pteased to vacate the interim orders datcrl 05.03.2026 passed in CRLp.No.3029 of 2026 and dismiss the criminal Petition. 3 _ This Petitiorr coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum o[ Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hcaring the arguments .rJ s.i BHaRCAVAKRISHNA.L, Advocate for the Petitionr:r ancl thr: public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos_1 & 2 and of the Advocate Ccncral appearing for the Respondent No.3. CRLP NO;307 oF 2026 4 Bctween Mcdarn Krishnamrrrlhv. S,/rr. l\.'l('LJ.,rn Sonraiah, Aged 74yrs, occupation Rt,tirr,rr, R/o.6_5_ 236 / l, Bee t ma rkt,t. N.r lg,,n, 1.1. fu" f ,,"^,-i,'fr,r*;;?:;^r"." _ 50800 t. PETIIIONER/ ACCUSED 4ND -1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Station House Officer, P.S. - Nalgonda Rural, Nalgonda District. ..Respondent No.1. Sri B-Rampathi, District Manager, TGSCSCI Nalgonda, Nalgonda Disrrict - 508001 ...Respondent No.2. / Defacto 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 call Ior the records and examine the same in pursuance to the F.l.R No.36/ 2126 dated.23.02.2026 registered at P.S. Nalgonda Rural, Nalgonda District, under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(3), 378(4) r / w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 202j agairst the petitioners. I.A. NO: zOF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitiory the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings of the Petitioners in FIR No.36/ 2026 on the file of P.S. Nalgonda Rural, Nalgonda District under Sections 31.6(2),376(5),318(3), 318(4) r/w 3(5) of the Bhara tiya Nyaya Sanhita, 202. I.A.NO: 3OF 2026 Between: Sri B.Rampathi, District Manager, T Nalgonda, Nalgonda District - 508001 ..Petitioner/ Respondcnt No.2 And 1 Medam Krishnamurthy, S/o. Medam Somaiah, Aged 74 yrs, Occupation Retired, R/o.6-5-2j6/1,, Beet market, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District, Telangana - 508001. .. Respondent/ Petitioner. The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Station House Officer, P.S, - Natgonda Rural, Nalgonda District. ..Respondent/ Respondent No.1. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitiory the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 05.8.2026 passed in CRLP.No-3074 of 2026 and dismiss the Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Peridon and upon hearing ttre arguments of Sri NAGULARAPU KEERTHI SIMHA, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of the Advocate General appearing Respondent No.2- CRLP NO: 3742OF 2026 Between: Ramesh Raianna Chiliveri @ Chiliveri Ramesh, S/o Rajanna, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Business, Proprietor of M/S. PRANAVI RICE MILL. R,/o.H.No.4-42, Near Masiid, Morthad, VVaddyat, Vaddiyat, Nizamabad. Telangana-503225, Business Address survey 2 2 No.2Z/D, 225/C2,225/ A, Battay:ar to Tadpakal Road, Tadpakal. Nizamabatl, Telarrgarra_ - 503308 Petitioner/ Accused. AT.ID 1. The State of Telangana,, Rcp. by its Public Prosecutor, through The Station House Officer. Police Station Ycrgatla, Nizamabad District, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, 2. The Station House Officcr, Police Station Yergatla, Nizamabad District, Telangana. 3. M. Srikanth Reddy, District Manager, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd (TGSCSCL), Nizamabad Disrrict, Telangana. ...Respondents. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimin:rl Petitiory the High Court may be pleased to CaIl for the records in FIR No.10 of 2026 dated 26-02-2026 on the file of the Police Station Yergatla, Nizamabad District, and QUASH the same against the Petitioner/Accused. I.A. NO:2OF 7026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Mernorandum of Grouncls of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY all lurther proceedings, including thc arrest of the Petitioner, in FIR.No.10 of 2026 dated 2642-2026 on the file of Policc Station Yergatla, Nizamabad District, pending disposal of the r:riminal case. I.A. NO:3 OF 2026 Between: M. Srikanth Recldy, District Man;rger, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd (TGIICSCL), Nizamabacl Distrir t, I clangana. ..Petitioner/Respondent No.3 And 1. Ramesh Rajanna Chilivcri t<D Chiliveri Ramesh, S/o Rajanna, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Business, Proprietor of M/S. PRANAVI RICE MILL. R/o.H.No.4-42, Near Masjid, Morthad, Wad d ya t, Vaddiya t, Nizamabad. Telangana-503225, Business Address Survey No. 223/D,225/C2,225/ A, Battapur to Tadpakal Road, Tadpakal. Nizamabad, 'Ielangana - 50330U. ..Respondent/ Petitioncr. 2. The State o[ Telangana,, Itcp. by its Public Prosecutor, through The Station House Officer. Police Statior-r Yergatla, Nizamabad District, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabari. 3. rhe starion Housc officcr. r,orice srarion yergarra, -,::tiilTH{ff:i"r"ir"lj}:.' ..Respondent/ Respondent No.2. M"-.,.:;,:'[i';l;i*:::::Tl,li,ili&,,'#,,i,,_,[ilT:ffi:I'ff ::;:':'J].:l: the or'Jer tJated o5/ 03/ 2026 i. (-Rr.p No 3i;t;;;;;6 and dismiss the criminar per*ion. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri BHARGAVAKRISHNA.L, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and of the Advocate General appearing for Respondent No.3. CRLP NO: 3743 OF 2026 Berween: Mashetty Radha Krishna, S/o.Mashetti Ramulu, Aged about 58 years, Occ. Business, R/o.Flat No.401, H.No.6-2{31 Meer Bagh Colony, Srinivasa Towers Nalgonda, Nalgonda Disrrict. ...Petitioner/ Accused No.1. AND 1. The State of Telangana., Through S.H.O, P.S. Nalgonda Rural, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad, Hyderabad 2. Sri B.Rampathi, S/o.Bheekya Aged about 47 years, Occ.Working as District Manager, TGSCSCL, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. ..Respondents/ Defacto Complainant. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal PetitioO the High Court may be pleased to quash the Criminal Proceedings agairut the Petitioner/ Accused No.1 in Crime No.36 of 2026, dt.23.02.2026 on the file of Nalgonda Rural Police Station, Nalgonda District. I.A. NO: zOF 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 including arrest of the Petitioner/ Accused No.1 in Crime No.36 of 2026, dt.23.O2.2026 on the file of Nalgonda Rural Police Station, Nalgonda District, pending disposal of the Crimina-l Petition. I.A. NO:3OF 2026 Between: Sri B.Rampathi, S/o.Bheekya, Aged about 47 years, Occ.Working as District Manager, TGSCSCL, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. ..Petitioner/ Respondent No,2. And 1. Mashetty Radha Krishna, S/o.Mashetti Ramulu, Aged about 58 years, Occ. Business, R/o.Flat No.401, H.No.6-2{31 Meer Bagh Colony, Srinivasa Towers Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. ..Respondent/ Petitioner. 2. The State of Telangana., Through S.H.O, P.S. Nalgonda Rural, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad, Hyderabad ..Respondent/ Respondent No.1- Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in thc Memorandunr of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to vacatE thr: interim order dated 05/03/2026 in CRLP.No.31 43 of 2026 and dismiss the criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon I'rearing the arguments of sri C.Hari Preet[ Advocate for the: Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1. and of the Ad.vocate General Appearing for Rcspondent No.2. CRLP NO: 3744OF 2026 Between: Edukulla Damodar, S/o.E,Gurvaiah Aged about 53 years, Occ. Business R/o.H.No.6-5- 778, Beat Marke! Near TTD Kalyanamandapam, Nalgonda Town and District, Telangana State. ...Petitioner/ Accused No.1. AND 1. The State of Telangana., Through S.H.O, P.S. Munugode, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High court at lJyderabad, Hyderabad. ..Respondent. 2. Sri B.Rampathi, S/o.Bhcekya, Aged about 47 years, Occ.Working as District Manager, TGSCSCL, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. ...Respondent/ Defacto Complainant. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Melnorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the Criminal Proceedings against the Petitioner/ Accused No.1 in Crime No.28 of 2026, dt.Z\.02.2026 on the file of Munugocle Police Station, Nalgonda District. 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 aII lurther proceedings including arrest of the Petitioner/Accused No.1 in Crime No.28 of 2026, dt.23.02.2126 on the file of Munugode Police Statiory Nalgonda District, pen([ing disposal of the Criminal Pctition. I.A. NO:3OF 2026 Between: Sri B.Rampathi, S/o.Bheckya, Aged about 47 vears, Occ.Working as District Manager, TGS(ISCL, Nalgonda, Nalgonda Disrrict. And ..Petitioner/2nd ltespondent 1 fi:lrX#liff';,:j:,;,q'rvai'rh Aged .,bour 53 years, occ. Business and District, Telanl;ana ,,#"t' Near T'-fD Ka I'an'rmandapr-, rvago.,ia Town I.A. NO:2OF 2026 ..Respondent/ Petitioner. 2. The State of Telangana., Ttuough S.H.O, P.S. Munugode, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor' High court at Hyderabad' Hydcrabad' ..Respondent/ Respnodent- 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 vacate the interim orders dated 05/ 03/ 2026 in CRLP.No. 3744 of 2026 and dismiss the Criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C.Hari PreettL Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of the Advocate General appearing for Respondent No.2. CRLP NO: 3745OF 2026 Between: 1. Edukulla Damodar, S/o.E.Gurvaiah Aged about 53 years, Occ. Business R/o.H.No.6-5-178, Beat Market, Near TTD Kalyanamandapam, Nalgonda Town & DistricL Telangana State. 2. Kandukuri Ravi Kumar, S/o.Kandukuri Lingaiah, Aged about 62 years, Occ Business R/o.H.No.6-5-763/ CS7, Ravindra Nagar Beet Market, Nalgonda. Nalgonda District. ...Petitioners/ Accused Nos.4 & 5. AND 1. The State of Telangana., Tfuough S.H.O, P.S. Nalgonda Rural, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad, Hyderabad. .. Respondent. 2. Sri B.Rampathi, S/o.Bheekya, Aged about 47 years, Occ.Working as District Manager, TGSCSCL, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. ...Respondent/ Defacto Complainant. Petition uncier Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stateci in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the Criminal Proceedings against the Petitioners/ Accused No.4 & 5 in Crime No.36 of 2026dt.2j.02.2026 on the file of Nalgonda Rural Police Station, Nalgonda District . I.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 including arrest of the Petitioners/ Accused No.4 & 5 in Crime No.36 of 2026, dt.23.02.2026 on the file of Nalgonda Rural Police Station. Nalgonda District. l.A. NO:3OF2026 Befween: Sri B.Rampathi, S/o-Bheekya, Aged about 47 years, Occ.Working as District Manager, TC;SCSCL, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. Petitioner/2"d Respondent And 1. Edukulla Damodar, S/o.E.Gurvaiah Aged about 53 years, Occ. Business R/o.H.No.6-5-178, Beat Market, Near TTD Kalyanamandapam, Nalgonda Town & District, Telangana State. Kandukuri Ravi Kumar, S/o.Kandukuri Lingaiah, Aged about 62 years, Occ Business R/o.H.No.6-5-763 /C51., Ravindra Nagar Beet Market, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. .. Respondents/ Petitioners. The State of Telangana., Through S.H.O, P.S. Nalgonda Rural, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad, Hyderabad. .. Respondent/ Respondent. 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 vacate the interim orders dated 05/03/2026 in CRLP.3145 of 2026 and dismiss the crirninal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of (lriminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C.Hari Preeth, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on bchalf of the Respondent No.1 and of the Advocate General appearing for Rcspondcnt No.2. CR[.P NO:32MOF 2026 Between: V. I.lavi Kumar, s/o.Ramakrishna, (Proprietor of M/s. Sri Raghavendra Industries, Old Vanri (V and M), Aged about 39 yc'ars, occ. Busincss, R/o. 434, Nehrunagar, Varni Mar.dal, Nizamabad District, ...Pefi tioner/ Accused- ANI) 1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecuror, High Court at Hyderabad through SHO PS Vami. Nizamabad District. 2. M.Srikanth Reddy, s/o. not known, Aged not known to the Petitioners, Occ. Employee, District Manager, TSCSCL, Nizamabad-503001 ,.,Respondents/Complainant. 2 J 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 riIR No. 39 of 2026 on the file of PS Varni, Nizamabad dated, 25-02-2026, for the offences registered U/s. 316(5), 318(4) BNS, 7 ECA. . . NO: 2 OF 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 stay all further proceedings in FIR No.39 ot 2026 on the file of f€ Varni, Nizamabad dated 25-02- 2026, fir the offerrces registered u/s.376(5),318(4) BNS, 7 ECA, including arrest of the Petitioner, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition' I.A. NO:3OF2026 Between: M.Srikanth Reddy, occ: District Manager, TSCSCL, Nizamabad District, Telangana- 503m1' ..petitionerr/2d Respondent. And L. v. Ravi Kumar, s/o.Ramakrishna, (Proprietor of M/s. sri Raghavendra Industries, Old Vami (V and M), Aged about 39 years, occ. Business, R/ o- 444, Nehrunagar, Varni Mandal, Nizamabad District. ..Respondent/ Petitioner. 2. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad through SHO 15 Varni. Nizamabad District. ..Respondent/ Respondent No.1. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Pctition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the order datedo6/03/2026 on CRLP.N o.3206 pf 2026 and dismiss the criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crirninal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.Durga Prasad, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No'1 and oI the Advocate General appearlng for Rcspondent No.2. CRLP NO: 3426 OF 2026 Between: smt. s. Ajitha, w/o s' Lingam, Aged about 59 i'ears ' Occ- Proprietorship/Business' Proprietor/Lease Holder of M/S. sri Raia Rajeshwara Traders, R/o.Flat No. 505, Surya Towers, Rajyalaxmi Residency, Pragathi Nagar, Nizamabad Telangana-503003, Business Address- Khanapur, Nizamabad Rural, Nizamabad, Telangana. ...Petitioner/ Accused. ;AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Pubtic Prosecutor, through The Station House Officer, Police Station Nizamabad Rural, Nizamabad District, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Nizamabad Rural, Nizamabad District, Telangana. 3. M- Srikanth Reddy, District Manager, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., (TGSCSCL), Nizamabacl District, Telangana. ...Respondenrs. Ancl :i Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Mr:morandum o{ Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High C-ourt rnay be pleased to Call fcii the records in FIR No. 69 of 2026 dated 25-02-2026 on the file of the Police Station Ni:zamabad Rural, Nizamabad District and QUASH the sane against the Petitioner/ Accused. I.A. NO:zoF2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crirninal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY all further proceedings including the arrest of the Petitioner, in FIR No.69 of 2026 dated 25- 02-',r-026 on the file of Police Station Nizamabad Rural, Nizamabad District pending dis;rosal of the above criminal petition. I.A. NO:3OF2026 Beh^/een: M. []rikanth Reddy, District Manager, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., (TCSCSCL), Nizamabad Diskict, Telangana. Petitioner/ Respondent No.3. Smt. S. Ajitha, W/o S. Lingam, Aged about 59 years , Occ- Proprietorship/Business, Proprietor/Lease Holder of M/S. Sri Raja Rajeshwara Traders, R/ o-Flat No. 505, Surya Towers, Rajyalaxmi Residency, Pragathi Nagar, N izamabad, Telangana- 503003, Business Address- Khanapur, Nizamabad Rural, Nizamabad, Telangana. .- Respnodent/ Petitioner. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, through The Station House Officer, Police Station Nizamabad Rural, Nizamabad District, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. The Station House Officer, Police Station Nizamabad Rural, Nizamabad District, Telangana. -. Respondents/ Respondents. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circurnstances stated in the Menrorardum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the crder dated 10/03/2026 on CRLP.No.3426 of 2026 ancl dismiss the criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing. upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Bhargavakrishna.L, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 & 2 and of the A.dvocate General appearing for Respondent No.2. CRLI' NO: 34.33 OF 2026 3 Betw,len: laggappa @ Banja laggapa, S/o Banja Maruthi, aged. 57 years Occ. Business, R/o Khan.apur village, Kalher Mandal, Sangaredcly Disbrict. Petitioner/Accused. AND 7. I}'a;tt:;:a" Telangana' rep by its Public Prosecuror High Courr of Judicature at 2. G. Ambadas Rajeshwar, District Manager, TGSCSCL Sangareddy. ...Respondents / Defacto Complainant. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in thc Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in Crime No.5 of 2026 d.ated 20.01.2026 registered by Police, sirgapur for the offences U / s 31'6 (2),31,6 (5) BNS, 7 ECA in the interest of justice. I.A. NO:1.OF2026 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 Srant stay of all further proceedings in F.I.R.No.S of 2026 dated 20.01.2026 registered by Police, Sirgapur for the offences U / s 3'1.6 (2), 316 (5) BNS, 7 ECA. I.A. NO:2OF2026 Between: G. Ambadas Rajeshwar, Disrrict Manager, T L Sangareddy. ..Petitioner/ 2"d Respondent. And 1,. laggappa @ Banja )aggapa, S/o Banja Maruthi, aged.57 years Occ. Business, R/o Khanapur village, Kalher Mandal, Sangareddy District. ..Resopndent/ Petitioner. 2. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of |udicature at Hyderabad. .. Respondent/ Respondent. Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to vacate the interim orders passed in crlp 3433 of 2026 aod dismiss the criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N.Manohar, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. and of the Advocate General appearing for Respondent No-2. CRLPNO:3587 OF2026 Between: Sri Burugu Bala Kishan, S/o. B. Veera Mallaiah, Aged about 64 years, Occ.Business, R/o. H.No.6-F126/a, Ravindra Nagar, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. ...Petitioner/ Accused No.6. AND 1. The State of Telangana, through P.S., Hayathnagar Rep. by its P.P., High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. 2. Sri B. Rampathi, S/o. Bheekya, Aged 17 years, Occ.Diskict Manager, TGSCSCL, Nalgonda R/o. Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. ... Respondents/ Complainant. l'etition under Sectron 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for- thr: records relating to Crime No.36 of 2026 dated 23.02-2026 by Police Station, Nalgonda, Rural on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate (Special Mobile) Court at Nalgonda and qu ash the same. I.A. NO: 7 OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitioru the High Court may be plcased to stay all further proceedings in Crime No.36 of 2026, dated 23.02.2026 by Police Station, Nalgonda, Rural on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate (Special Mobile) Court at Nalgonda, inc)uding the arrest of the Petitioner pending disposal of the main petition- I.A NO:2OF2026 Bebween: Sri B. Rampathi, S/o. Bheekya, Aged 47 years, Occ.District Manager, TGSCSCL, Nalgonda R/o. Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. ..Petitioner/ 2"d Respondent. An<l l. Sri Burugu Bala Kishan, S/o. B. Veera Mallaiah. Aged about 64 years, Occ.Business, R/o. H.No.6-5-726/ a, Ravindra Nagar, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District, .. Respondent/ Petitioner. 1l The State of Telangana, through P.S., Hayathragar Rep. by its P.['., ]{igh Court of Judicaturc at Hyderabad. ..Respondcnt/ Respondent. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Menrorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate thc rnterim orders dated 72/03/2026 in CRLP.No.3587 of 2026 and disnriss the criminal Petit ion. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memoranclunt of Grounds of C-iminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kavadi Naresh, Advocate for the l)etitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No,1 and of the Adv,xate General appearing lor Respondent No.2. CIlLl']NO: 3927 OF 2026 Between: Mashctty Radha Krishna, S/o.Mashetti Ramulu, Aged about 58 years, Occ. Business, R/o,l:lat No.401, H.No.6-2331, Meer Bagh Colony, srinivasa Towers Nalgoncla, Nalgonda Distr,ct. AND ...pctitioner/ Accused. 1. The State of Telangana., Through S.H.O, P.S. Munugode, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High court at Hyderabad, Hyderabad- ..Respondent. 2. Sri B.Rampathi, S/o.Bheekya, Aged abort 47 years, Occ.Working as District Manager, TGSCSCL, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District- ...Respondent/ Defacto 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 Criminal Proceedings agairut the Petitioner/ Accused in Crime No.28 of 2026, dt.23.02.2026 on the file of Munugode Police Station, Nalgonda District. I.A. NO:zOF2026 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 including arrest of the Petitioner/ Accused in Crime No.28 of 2026, dt.2i.02.2o26 on the file of Munugode Police statiory Nalgonda District, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. I.A. NO:3OF2026 Between: Sri B.Rampathi, S/o.Bheekya, Aged about 47 years, Occ.Working as District Manager, TGSCSCL, Nalgonda, Nalgonda Disrrict- Petitioner/ Respondent. And 1. Mashetty Radha Krishna, S/o.Mashetti Ramulu, Aged about 58 years, Occ. Business, R/o.Flat No.401, H.No.6-2-831, Meer Bagh Colony, Srinivasa Towers Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. .. Respondent/ Petitioner. The State of Telangana., Tfuough S.H.O, P.S. Munugode, Rep. by its public Prosecutor, High court at Hyderabad, Hyderabad. .. Respondent/ Respondent. 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 vacate the interim orders dated 17 / 03 /2026 in CRLP.No.3921 of 2026 u.,d dis-iss the criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri C.Hari preeth, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public P.osecutor onLhalf of the Respondent No.1 and of the Advocate General appearing for Respondent No.2. 2 CRLPNO:4024OF 2026 Between: Mahammod rafuddin, s/o Mahamrnod Haji Abdut Nabi, Aged about 55 years, ocr. Proprietor/ Lease Holder of M/S. G.N. Traders, Rlo 9-62/3, Thimmanagar Road, Pittarn, Kamareddy, Telangana, 503310, Business Address ts/No.1-115, shivarbhramanapally (V\. Annaram X roads, Pitlam Man<lal, Kamareddy District. At{D ...petitioner/ Accused. 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, through l'he Station House Officer, Police Station Pitlam, Kamareddy District, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Pitlam, Kamareddy District, Telangana. 3. Srikanth Kokkula, District Manager, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd L), Kamareddy Distric! Telangana ..Respondents. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitiory the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in FIR No.51 of 2026 dated 1543-2026 on the file of Police Station Pitlam, Karnareddy District and quash the same against the Petitioner/Accused. I.A NO: 2OF 2026 [)etition under Scction 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Mer-norandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitiory the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the arrest of the Petitioner in FIR No.51 of 2026 dated 15-03- 2026 on thc filc of Police Station Pitlam, Kamareddy Disrrict pending disposal of the above Crirninal petition. I.A NO:3Or'2026 Betrveen: Srikanth Kokkula, District Manager, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd (TC SCSCt-), Ka mareddy District, Telangana. Petitioner/ Respondent. Anr: I 2 3 Mahammod Tafuddin, S/o Mahammod Haji Abdul Nabi, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Proprietor/ Lease Holder of M/5. G.N. Traders, R/o9-62/3, Thimrnanagar Iload, I'itlam, Kamareddy, Telangana, 503310, Business Address t)/No.1-115, Shivarbfuamanapally (V), Annaram X roads, Pitlam Mandal, Kamareddy Disrrict. .. Respondent/ Peti tioner. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, tfuough The Station House Officcr, Police Station Pitlam, Kamareddy District, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. The Station Housc Officer, Police Station Pitlam, Kamareddy District, Telangana. .. Respondents/ Respondents. Petition under Sectiot'r 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorantlum of (lrounds of Criminar petition, trre Higtr Court may be preased to vacated the ir)te rinl orct'rs dated 1g/03/2026 in CRLp.No.4O24 of 2026 ancr clismiss the criminar petition. of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Bhargavakrishna.L, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and of the Advocate General appearing for Respondent No.3. CRLP NO: 4027 OF 2026 Between: Rahul Chinuri, Srlo Chinuri Ashok, Aged about 33 years. Occ Proprietor/ Lease Holder of M/s Venkateshwara Traders, R/ o.3/96, Masan Palle, Masanpally, Medak, Kather, Andfua Pradesh, 502377, Business Address 4-125 / 1., Main Road, Thimmanagar Village, Pitlam Mandal, Kamareddy Distict, Telangana-503310. ...PETITIONER/ ACCUSED. AND 1. The State of Telangarn, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, through The Station House Officer, Police Station Pitlam, Kamareddy District, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Pitlam, Kamareddy Distric! Telangana. 3. Srikanth Kokkula, District Manager, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd (TGSCSCL), Kamareddy Districr, Telangana. ...Respondents. 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 call for the records in FIR No.50 of 2026 dated 15-03-2026 on the file of Police Station Pitlam, Kamareddy District and quash the same. I.A. NO:zOF2026 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 STAY all further proceedings, including the arrest of the Petitioner, in FIR No.50 of 2026 dated 75-03-2026 on the file of Police Station Pitlam, Kamareddy District, pending disposal of the above criminal petition. l.A. NO:3OF20'N Between: Srikanth Kokkula, Diltrict Manager, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd (TGSCSCL), Kamareddy District, Telangana. Petitioner/ Resondent And 1. Rahul Chinuri, S/o Chinuri Ashok, Aged about 33 years. Occ Proprietor/ Lease Holder of M/s Venkateshwara Traders, R/ o.3/96, Masan Palle, Masanpally, Medak, Kather, Andhra Pradesh,502377, Business Address 4-725/1, Main Road, Thimmanagar Village, Pitlam Mandal, Kamareddy District, Tclangana-503310. ..Respondcnt/ Petitioner 2. l he State of 'Ielangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, through The Station Houso- Officcr, Police Station Pitlam, Kamareddy District, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 3. The Station House Officer, Police Station Pitlam, Kamareddy District, Telangana. ..Respondents/ Respondents. Pctition 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 vacate the interim order datcd 18/ 03/2026 in CRLP.No.4\2zof 2026 and dismiss the criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of (lriminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Bhargavakrishna.L, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behal( of the Respondent No.1 &2 and of the Advocate General appearing for Respondent No.3. CRI-P NO:4058 OF 2026 Behveen: L. Nikhil Yadav T.ta'ar, s/o. Subhash, Aged about 30 years, occ Business, r/o. Nasrullabad, Karnareddy I)istrict. 11. Laxmi Totavar, w/o. Subahash, Aged about 52 years, occ Business, r/o. Nasrullabad, Kamareddy District. !;. Subhash'lotavar, s/o. Hanumantha Rao, Aged about 55 vears, occ Business, r/o. Nasrullabad, Kantareddy District. ...Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 1 to 3. ANI) 1. state ol relanga.r:r, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad through SI-IO t5 Nasrullabad, Kamareddy District. 2. Kokula Srikanth, s/o, Ramanjam, Aged 46 years, occ Employee, District Manager, TSCSCL, Kamart:ddy. ...Respondents/ Complainant. Pctitiorr under Scction 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Merrtorandum of crounds of Criminal Petitioru the High Court may be pleased to quash the FIR No.31 of 2026 on thc file of f€ Nasrullabad, Kamareddy dated 15-03-2026, for the offences registerecl U /s.316(2),316(5),318(3), r/w. 3(5) of BNS, Secrion 7 ECA. I.A l'IO: zOF 2026 Pctition untlcr Scction 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorantlum ot (.irourrcls of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all furth,rr procec(rings in IjrR No.31 of 2026 on the fire of r]S Nasruflabad, kamareday dated ts_O3.2026, for tht, .ffenccs,rr.gistered U / s. 376e), 316(5), 31ge), r/ w. 3(5) oi SNS, Section 7 EC1r, incrudi.g .1rre'sr of th,, Fe ti tione.r, pu"ai.g airporut of the main criminal petirion. NO: 3 OF 2026 Berween: Kokula Srikanth, s/o. Ramaniam, Aged 46 years, Occ Employee, District Manager, TSCSCL, Kamareddy. ..Petitioner/ Respondent No.2. And 1. Nikhil Yadav Totavar, s/o. Subhash, Aged about 30 years, occ Business, r/o. Nasrullabad, Kamareddy District. 2. Laxmi Totavar, w/o. Subahash" Aged about 52 years, occ Business, r/o. Nasrullabad, Kamareddy District. 3. Subhash Totavar, s/o. Hanumantha Rao, Aged about 55 years. occ Business, r/o. Nasrullabad, Kamareddy District. ..Respondents/ Petitioners. 4. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad through SHO t5 Nasrullabad, Kamareddy District. ..Respondent/ Respondent. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crirninal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to vaca te the interim orders dated 18/03/2026 in CRLP.No.4OS8 of 2026 and dismiss the criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.Durga Prasad, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of the Advocate General appearing for Respondent No.2. CRLP NO: 4745OF 2026 Between: Smt. E. Codawari, W/o Swamy, Aged about 49 years, Occ. Proprietorship/ Business. Proprietor of M/s. Sri laxmi Durga Agro Industries (Mill Code. 177787), R/o H.No. 1- 92/ 2, Bhoompally Village, Sadashivanagar Mandal, Kamareddy District, Telangana. ...Petitioner/ Accused. AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Tfuough the Station House Of (icer, Police Station Sadashivanagar, Kamareddy District. 2. The Station House Officer, Polirce Station Sadashivanagar, Kamareddy District, Telanga na. 3. Srikanth Kokkula, District Marnger, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd (TCSCS.L)' Kamareddy District' Telangana ' -..Respondents. Petition under Section 528 of BN$9 praying that in the circumstances state<i in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitioo the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in FIR No.62 of 2f,26 dated 17-03-2026 on the file o( Police Station Sadashivanagar, Kamareddy District, and quash the same. l.A. NO: 2OF 2026 Petition under Section 52U of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Me'morandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to srAy all further proceedings, inclucling thc arrest of the Petitioner, in FIR No. 62 of 2026 d,ated 17-03-2026 on the file of Police station sadashivanagar, Kamareddy District, pending disposal of the above criminal pctition. I.A NO: 3OF 2026 Between: Srikanth Kokkula,, District Manager, I'elangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd (TCSCSCL), Kamareddy Drstrict, Telangana. ..Petitioner/ Respondent No.2. Antl 1. Smt. E. Gr>dawari, W/o Swamy, Aged about 49 years, Occ. Proprietorship/ Business, Proprietor of M/s Sri Laxmi Durga Agro Industries (Mill Code. 777784, R/o H.No. 1,-92/ 2, Bhoompally Village, Sadashivanagar Mandal, Kamareddy Disrrict, Telangana. ..Respondent/ Petitioner ll. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Through the Station House Of ficer, Pol icc Sta tior.r Sa d ash i va nagar, Kamaredcly District. li. The Station House' Off icer, I)olice Station Sadashivanagar, Kamareddy District, Telangana. ..Respondents/ Respondents. Petition ttnrlcr Scction 52ti of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grouncls of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the .rnterim ordcrs tlaterl 24/03/2026 in CRLP.No.4145 of 2026 and dismiss the criminal Petilion. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Bhargavakrishna.L, Advocate for the Petitioner and tho Prrblic I'rosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and of the l\dvocate General appearing for Rcspondent No.3. CRLP NO: 4249 OF 2026 Between: sri Bachu Krishna Murth;'(r) Krishnamurthy Bachchu, s/o.sathya Narayana, Aged about 59 y,121s, Occ I)ropriet.r/ I),rrLncr, M/s. Sri t-alitha Devi Agro Industries, R/o 3-331, Gambhiraopet, Ilaja^na Sircilla District, Telangana - 505304. Business Address. Sy No 2g, chul:kapur Villa1]e, Macrrar.rlcrr.' Mandal, Kamareddy Distric! Telangana - 503111. AND ...petitioner/Accused. 1' The statc .f I'clangan.r, I{cp. try its public prosecutor, Tfuough the Station House i","ilI: fi:]:.X:l;.L,'"'^:'"i'ru' ru,.nu'"ia"v ot'o''., Hish"a;;;;r* th"stutu or 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Macharecldy,, Kamareclcly Disrrict, Telangana. 3. Sri Kokkula Srikanth, District Manager, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd (TGSCSCL), Kamareddy District, Telangana. ...Respondents. 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 call for the records in FIR No.55 of 2026 dated 18-03-2026 on the file of the Police Station Machareddy, Kamareddy District, and QUASH the same, I.A. NO: 2OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNIS praying tfnt in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitiory the High Court may be pleased to STAY all further proceedings, including the arrest of the Petitioner, in FIR No. 55 of 2026 dated 78-03-2026 on the file of Police Station Machareddy, Kamareddy Distric! pending disposal of the above criminal pefidon. I.A. NO: 3 OF 2026 Between: Sri Kokkula Srikanth, District Manager, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd (TCSCSCL), Kamareddy District, Telangana. Peti tioner/ Respondent And l. Sri Bachu Krishna Murthy @ Krishnamurthy Bachchu, S/o.Sathya Narayana, Aged about 59 years, Occ. Proprietor/Partner, M/s. Sri Lalitha Devi Agro Industries, R/o 3-3-81, Gambhiraopet, Rajarma Sircilla District, Telangana - 505304. Business Addrcss. Sy No 28, Chukkapur Village Machareddy Mandal, Kamareddy Disrrict, Tclangana - 503111' . Respondent/ petitioner. 2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Through the Station House Officer, Police Station Machareddy, Kamareddy District, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 3, The Station House Officer, Police Sration Machareddy,, Kamareddy District, Telangana' ..Respondents/ Respondents. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Crounds of Criminal Petitioru the High Court may be pleased to vacated the interim order dated 24/ 03 / 2026 in CRLP.No.4249 of 2026 and dismiss the criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gujiula Madhusudan, Advcrcate for thc Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and of the Advocate General appearing for Respondent No.3. CFILP NO: 4250OF 2o26 Between: saheb Rao Are, s/ o. Are Datl.ra Pak l, Aged about 68 years, occ Business. r/o. Birkur V lage, Birkur Mandal, Kamarcdcly Districr. A1\JD "'Petitioner/ Accused' 1' State of Telangana, Ii.ep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad through SHO t5 Birkur, Kamarec{dy Disrrict. 2. Kokula Srikanth, S/o. Ilamanjam, Aged 46 years, Occ Employee, District Manager, TSCSCL, Kamareddy -..Respondents/ 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 FIR No.42 of 2026 on the filc of f5 Birkur, Kamareddy dated 2143-2026, for the offences registered U / s.376(2),3i6(5), 313(3) of BNS. Secrion 7 ECA. I.A. NO: 2OF 2026 Petition under Scction 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Mernorandum of Grounds of crirninal Petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in IrlR No.42 ol 2(126 on thc fite of PS Birkur, Karnareddy dated 21-03- x26Ior the offences registt'recl u/s T6(2).316(5),318(3) of BNS, section 7 ECA, including arrest of the Petitioner, pendirlli dispr6,;31 of the main Criminal Petition. This Petition coming o. ror hc.rring, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon he.rling thL- arguments of Sri K.Durga prasad, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public I)rosectrtor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of the Advocate General appearinlg tor' llt'spontlent No_2. CRLP NO:4255 OF 2026 Betn,een: Dawood shaik, srzo shaik Mt:era sab, Aged about 73 years, occ. proprietor/ I-essee, M/s Vittal Modern Ricc Mill, R,zo HNo 3-13, Amdapur, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad Dishict Business Addrcss D.or No. 7-110, Gopalpet village, Nagireddypet Mandal, Kamareddy District - 50310B, Tclangan:r Srate. AND, " 'Petitioner/Accused' 1. The state of Telangana, Ilep bv irs public prosecutor, Tfuough the station House officer, Police station Nagircdclvpet, Karnareddy District High court for the state of Telangana, Hytlerabatl 2. The stati.n House ()fii.cr, p.rice station Nagireddypet, Kamareddy Dishict, Telangana. ' ff:H:.TiJiii:Xl; l:;Il i *';:i:"1"[:f,:na srate civir suppries Corpora rion ...Respondents. Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in FIR No. 55 of 2026 dated 18-03-2026 on the file of the Police Station Nagirecldypet, Kamareddy Disrrict, and QUASH the same against the Petitioner/ Accused. I.A. NO: 2OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitioru the High Court may be pleased to STAY all further proceedings, including the arrest of the Petitioner, in FIR No. 55 of 2026 dated 18-03-2026 on the file of Police Station Nagireddypet Kamareddy Distric! pending disposal of the above criminal petition. This Pelition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gujjula Madhusudan, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and of the Respondent NO.3 not appearing in person or through his counsel. CRLP NO: 4256OF 2026 Between: Srinivasulu Baindla, S/o Kistaia[ Age. 40 Years, Occ.Proprietor, M/s.Uma Maheshwara Industries, R/o Inti nen 2-74/2, Malthummeda, Nagireddypet Mandal, Kamareddy District - 503108, Telangana State. Business Address. M/s Uma Maheshwara Industries, Door No 6-7N/2, Maltummeda Village, Nagireddypet Mandal, Kamareddy, Telangana - s03108. . ...Petitioner/Accused. AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Through the Station House Officer, Police Station Nagireddypet, Kamareddy District, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Nagireddypet, Kamareddy District, Telangana 3. Sri Kokkula Srikanth, District Manager,, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd (TGSCSCL), Kamareddy Districl Telangana. ..Respondents. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitiory the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in FIR No. 53 of. 2026 dated 18{3-2026 on the file of the Police Station Nagireddypet, Kamareddy District, and QUASH the same against the Petitioner/ Accused. I.A. NO: zOF 2026 Petition undcr Scction 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY all further proccedings, inctucling the arrest of the Petitioner, in FIR No. 53 of 2O26 dated 78-03-2026 on thc filc of Police Station Nagireddypet, Kamareddy District, pending disposal of the above criminal petition. This Petition con-ring on for hcaring, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumenti of sri Gujjula Madhusudan, Actvocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 & ll and of the respondent NO.3 not appearing in person or through his counsel. CRLP NO: 4257 OF 2026 Belween: sri sailu Kummari, s/o Lingaiah, Aged about 41 years, occ. proprietor/ Lessee, M/s. Thirumala Rice Mill, R/o H.No 2-87, Mardi, Medak Disrrict, Andhra pradesh - so22g1 Business Address Door No.4-39/ 1, shetpatti sangareddy village, Lingampet Mandal, Karnareddy District - 503108, Telangana State. AND ...petitioner/ Accused. 1. The state of relangana, Rep. by its public prosecutor, Through the station House officer, Police station Lingampet, Kamareddy Distric! High Court for the state of Telangana, Hyderabad. .2. The station House officer, police station Lingampet, Kamareddy District, Telangana. rikanth, District Manager, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation L), Kamareddv District, 1'elangana. ...Respondents. Petition under Section 52ll of IINSS praving that in the circumstances stated in the Mernorandum of Grounds of Criminal pctition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in FIR No. 49 d 2026 darcit 18103/2026 on the file of the police station Lingampet, Kamareddy District, and eUASH the same against the petitioner/Accused. I.A. NO:2OF2026 Pefition under Section 528 of IINSS pral,ing that in the circumstances stated in the Menrorandum of Grounds of Criminal puirion, the High Court may be pleased to srAy all ftrrther proceedings, including the arrest of the petitioner, in FIR No. a9 of 2026 d,ated, 78/03/2026 on the file of Police stati.n [.ingampet, Kamareddy District, pending disposal of the above criminal petition_ Sri Ltd 3 Kokkull S CRLI'NO: 4259 OF 2026 Betwt:en: _ This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Peridon and upon hearing the argumenti of sri Gujjula Madhusudan, Adv<rcate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the ilspondent Nos.1 & 2 and of the Respondent No.3 not appcaring irr person or through his courlel. Sri Kondhuri Yadhagiri @ yacihagiri Korlhuri, S,io Konduri Kar.ishnaiah @ K. Kistaiah, Aged about 50 years, occ. proprietix/ l-cssce, tr4/s sri Vcnkateshwara Traders, R/o H.No. s_5-95/-1, ye,arectdy (V .,nct,.M). <.,n,.,.,"tJu 6,lrf,.r, t*tanga", S;t"_;;;;. Business Addrr ss Door No a_tqz,:eiiarctltir t;l:,;;;:,";,;.,nu.,,. *o_u.oddy Disrri*. Peti tioner/Accused \aND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Through the Station House O6ficer, Police Station Yellareddy, Kamareddy District, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Yellareddy, Kamareddy District, Telangana. 3. Sri Kokkula Srikanth, District Manager, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd (TGSCSCL), Kamareddy District, Telangana. ...Respondents. 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 call for the records in FIR No.75l2026 dated 78-03-2026 on the file of the Police Station Yellareddy, Kamareddy District, and QUASH the same against the Petitioner/Accused. I.A. NO: 2OF2026 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 STAY all further proceedings, including the arrest of the Petitioner, in EIR No. 75 of 2026 dated 18-03-2026 on the file of Police Station Yellareddy, Kamareddy Disbict, 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 Sri Gujjula Madhusudan, Advocate for the Petitioncr and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and of the Respondent No.3 not appearing in person or through his counsel. CRLP NO:4260 OF 2026 Between: Sri Srinivas Muppidi, S/o Durgaiah, Aged about 49 years, Occ Proprietor/ Lessee, M/s. Sri Rajarajeshwari Traders, Rio Narva village, Nizamsagar mandal, Kamareddy District. Business Address Door No 7-55, Malthummeda Village, Nagireddypet Mandal, Kamareddy Disrrict - 503108, Telangana State. ...Petitioner/ Accused. AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Through the Shrion House Officer, Police Station Nagireddypet, Kamareddy District, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hvdcrabad. 2. The Station Housc Of ficer, Police Station Nagireddypet, Kamareddy District, Telangana. 3. Sri Kokkula Srikanth, District Manager, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd (tcscscl)' Kamarctldy District' Telangana ...Respondents- Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Crounds of Criminal Pctition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in FIt< No.54 oi '2026 dated 1u-u3-2026 on the file ol the l,otice station Nagireddypet, Kamareddy District, and QUASH the same against the petitioner/Accused. I.lr. NO: 2OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Mcmorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAy all further proceedings, including the arrest of the Petitioner, in FIR No.54 of 2026 dated, 78'03-2026 on the file of Police station Nagireddypet, Kamareddy 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 sri Gujjula Madhusudan, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos.l & 2 and of the Respondent No.3 not appearing in person or through his counsel. CRLPNO: 4267OF2026 Bebween: shekar Maddineni, s/o. Narsimha Rao, Aged about 55 years, occ. Business, r/o. veerapur Village, Birkur Mandal, Kamaredcly Diskict. AND ...petitioner/ Accused. -t. The state of relangana, Rep. by its public prosccutor, High Court at Hyderabad through SHO f5 Birkur, Kamareddy District. ll- Kokula srikanth, s/o. Ramanjam, Ageci 46 years, occ. Employee, District Manager, TSCSCL, Kamareddy. ...Respondents. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Menrorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the FIR No.41 of 2026 on the file of t5 Birkur, Kamaretldy dated 21-03-2026, tir tte offerrces registered U / s. 376(2),316(5), 318(3) ot BNS, Section 7 ECA. I.A. NO: 2OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Men'orandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in FIR No.41 of 2026 on the file of t,S Bi.k,.,., rima.eaay dated 2143- 2026, for the offences registered u/s.316(2),316(5), 318(3) of BNS, section 7 ECA, inclu,cing arrest of the Petitioner, pending disposal of the main Crirninal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sii K.Durga prasad, Advocate for thc Petitioner and the public prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No.1 and of the Respondsnt No.2 Not appearing in person or through his counsel. €RLP NO: 4376 OF 2026 Between: Konda Siddi Ramulu, Son of Narayana, Age. 63 Years, Occ. proprietor of M/s Sri Siddirameshwara Binny Rice Mill, R/ o 2-59, Kondapur (V and M) of Nizamabad District (Adhaar Card No. 256324601545). ...Petitioner/ Accused. AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rcp.by its Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad. ..l"t Respondent/State. 2. Kokula Srikanth, S/o. Ramanjam, Aged 46 years, Occ. District Marnger, (CS Corporation), Kamareddy Dist., ...2"d Respondent/Complainan t. 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 FIR No.27 of 2026 dated 74/03/2026 registered with Rajampet Police Station Kamareddy District. I.A. NO:zoF2026 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 stay all further proceedings in pursuant to the registration of FIR No.71 of 2026 dated L4/ 03/ 2026 registered with registered with Rajampet Police Station Kamareddy District including the investigatiory arrest and any coercive action against the Petitioner. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Somavarapu Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of the Respondent No.2 not appearing in person or through his counsel. CRLPNO:4367OF2026 Between: Vudugula laxmarL S/ o Vudugula Venkaiah, Aged about 59 years, Occ. Business/ Managing Partner, M/s. Kethaki Agro Industries, R/o H.No 7-99/1./17, Pitlarn Met dal. Nizamabad, Telangana - 503310. Business Address $yNS. -231, Nanded- Hyderabad Road, Velganur Village, Nizamsagar Mandal, Kamareddy District, Telangana - s03302. .,.Petitioner/ Accused. AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Nizamsagar, Kamareddy District, Telangana. 3. Srikanth Kokkula, District Manager, Tclangana State Civil Supplies Corporarion Ltd (TGScscL)' Kamarcddy District' Tclangana ...Respondents- Petitiolr under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Milmorandrrm of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to Call for thr: records in FIR No.47 of 2026 dated 23/03/2026 on the fite of the police station Nizamsagar, Kamareddy District, and QUASH the same against the petitioner/ Accused. I.A. NO: 2OF 2026 Pctition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Mcmorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitiory the High Court may be pleased to srAy all further proceedings, including the arrest of the petitioner, in FIR No.47 of 2026 dated 23-03-2026 on the file of Police station Nizamsagar, Kamareddy District, pending disposal of the above criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Mcmorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Gujlula Madhusudan, Ad vocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and of the llespondent No.3 not appearing in person or through his counsel. CRI-P NO: 4383OF 2026 Betrveen: Pairli Suresh Reddy, s/o late Narsihma Reddy, aged about 65 years, proprietor, sri sai Kir:Ln Rice Mill, Adloor Yella Reddy village, ss Nagar Mandal, Karna Recldy District. ANI) ,.PI]TITTONER/ACCUSED L Thc Statt of Telangana tfuough SHO Sadashiv Nagar, Karnaredcly, Rep. by public Prosccutor, High Court of Telangana. ..Respondent No.1. 2. sri srikanth Kokkula, s/o Ramanujam, Aged about 46 years, occ-District Manager, I'elangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (icSCfI-) KamaReddy District. ...Respondent No.2./ Defacto Complainant. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Merrtorandum of Grounds of Crirninal Petition, the High court may be pleased to euASH the [;lll.No,61 of 2026 Dated 17.03.2026 on the file of p s sadashivnagar, Kamareddy District against the Petitioner. I.A. fJO: 2OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Mem'rrandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court nray be preased to srAy :!.1 -tl^rl proceedings includ,ing the arrest of the peritioner, in F[R.No.6r of 2026 dated li;l?;,1i11' :J: ji:"::";i#H,.:jXt"" sadashi vna ga r' Ka marcdcl v D is tric t, pending fhrs I')t'titi.n r"-t"l: for hcaring, upon perusing the Menrorandum or Grounds r'f ('rrrrrrn.rl pt,tilr,,n and upon hcaring , f_,! urgr_1.,, of Srr V Ramcsh Kum.rr, Advocate 'Tor the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of the Respondent No.2 not appearing in person or tfuough his counsel. CRLP NO: 4482OF 2026 Between: 1. Sri Maddikunta Narsa Goud, S/o Bala Goud, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Business/Partner of Sri Bhagya Laxmi Agro Industries. 2. Smt. Maddikunta Vanaja, W/o M. Narsa Goud. Aged about 47 years, acc. Business/Partner of Sri Bhagya L.axmi Agro lndustries. 3. Sri Maddikunta Manoj Goud, S/o M. Narsa Goud, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Business. All are R/o H.No 7 -172, Reddypet, Machareddy Mandal, Nizamabad/Kamareddy, Telangana, 5031,M. Business Address Sy-No.423/1E Al, Vill. Reddypet, Mdl. Ramareddy, Dist. Kamareddy - 503 lM,Telangana. ...Petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3. AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, tfuough The Station House Officer, Police Station Ramareddy, Kamareddy Disrric! High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Ramareddy, Kamareddy Distric! Telangana. 3. Srikanth Kokkula, District Manager. Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd ), Kamareddy District, Telangana ...Respondents. 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 Call for the records in FIR No.62 of 2026 datcd 24-03-2026 on the file of the Police Station Ramareddy, Kamareddy District, and QUASI{ the same against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3. I.A. NO:zOF2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, thc High Court may be pleased to STAY all further proceeding+ including the arrest of the Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in FIR \o.62 of 2026 dated 2443-2026 on the file of Police Station Ramareddy, Kamareddy Disrrict, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon pcrusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Bhargavakrishna.L, Advocate for the Peritioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos.L & 2 and of the Respondent No.3 not appearing in person or tfuough his counsel. CRLPNO: 4483OF2026 Between: Smt. Maddikunta Vanaja, W / o M.Narsa Goud, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Proprietorsfup/Business, Proprietor of Sri Bhagya Laxmi Binny Rice Mill, R/ oH.No 7-772, Rcddypet, Machareddy Mandal, Niz.amabad/ Kamarcddy, Telangana, 503L44, Business A<ldress Sy,.No.423/ EEA2, Reddypet, Machareddy, Reddipet, Kamareddy, Telangana, 501144 Petitioner/ Accused AI.JD 1 The State of relangana, Rep. by its pubiic prosecutor, tluough rhe station House officcr, Police station Ramareddy, Kamareddy District, High Court for the state of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2. The station House officer, Police station Ramareddy, Kamareddy District, Telangana. 3. srikanth Kokkula, District Manager, Telangana state Civil supplies corporation Ltd (TGSCSCL), Kamareddy District, Telangana. ...Respondents. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Me:morandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitiory the High Court may be pleased to Call for the records in FIR No.61 of 2026 dated 24{J-l2026 on rhe file of ihe police station Ranrareddy, Kamareddy District, and QUASH the same against the petitioner/ Accused. I.A. NO: 2OF 2026 Petition r-rnder Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Mernorandum of Grounds oI Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAy all further proceedings, including the arrest of the petitioner, in FIR No.6t of 2o26 dated 24-01'2026 on the file of I'olice Station Ramareddy, Kamareddy District, pcncling disposal of tL e abovc crirninal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorantlum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sii Bhargavakrishna 1., Advocate for the Petitioncr and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respbrrdent Nos.1 & 2 and of the I.lespondent No-3 not appearing in person or through his counsel. CRL,'NO:4485 OF 2026 NND 1. Between: sri Musthyala sridhar. s/o Mustyala sudhakar, Aged about 44 years, occ. Busirress/ Managing Partner of M/s shiva Ganesh Industri"r, R7o H.No 3-l-9, satelli Base. Yellareddy Mandalam, Yellareddy, Nizamabad/K4mareddy, Telangana, 503122. Business Address. M/s shiva canesh Industries, Door No. 3-92, Annasagar village, ye areddy Manrlal, Karnarectly District, Telangana, 503302. ...Petitioncr/ Accused. The Srare .f Telangana, Rep. by its public prosecutor, through .fhc. St.rtion House officcr, p.rrcc sration yerarediy, Kamareddy District, High Court for thc state of Telangana, I Iyclt ra bad I[";:i:",. FIouse officcr, Police sration yellarccicty, Kamarr.ctciy Distri*, ,SIild:]rh K,,kkut.r, Disrrict Manager, Telansana Sra Ltcl (lGsCsc-L), KarnarcdJy r""ii'r"r""*3;'j" -tt" civil supplics (orporarion 2 3. ...Respondents 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 Call for the records in FIR No.74 oI 2026 dated 18-03-2026 on the file of the Police Station Yellareddy, Kamareddy District, and QUASH the same against the Petitioner/ Accused. I.A. NO:2OF2026 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 STAY all further proceedings, including the arrest of the Petitioner/ Accused, in FIR No.74 of 2026 dated 7843-2026 on the file of Police Station Yellareddy, Kamareddy 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 Sri Bhargavakrishna.L, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and of the Respondent No.3 not appearing h person or through his counsel. CRLP NO: M86OF 2026 Betwcen: Sri Panthangi Ramakrishna @ Panthangi Rama krishan, S/o Panthangi Ramulu, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Proprietor of M/s Bhavani Industries, R/o 54-9a/5, New Abadi, Yellareddy Mandal, Yellareddy, Nizamabad/ Kamareddy, Telangana, 503122. Business Address. M/s Bhavani Industries, Door No. 1-132, Mallaipalli Village, yellareddy Mandal, Kamarcddy District, Telangana. AND ...petitioner/ Accused. 1- The state of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, through rhe starion House officer, Police station Yellareddy, Kamareddy Disrrict, High Court for the state of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2. The station House officer, Police station yellaretldy, Kamareddy District, Telangana. 3. srikanth Kokkula, District Manager, Telangana state civil supplies Corporation Lrd (TGSCSCL), Kamareddy Disrrict, Telangana. ...Respondents. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Mcmorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Call for the records in FIR No.76 of 2026 dated 18-03-2026 on rhc filc of the police station Yellareddy, Kamareddy District, and QUASH the same against thc petitioner/ Accused. l.A. NO: 2OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in thc circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the tJigh Court r:ray be pleased to srAy all further proceedings, irrcluding the arrest of the Petitioncr/ Accuscd, in FIR No.76 of 2026 dated 78-03,2026 on thc file of police Station yellare<l<ly, pending disposal of thc above Criminal petition. Kamareddy Disrricu This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Pctition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Bhargavakrishna.L, Advocate for the Petitioner and the I)ublic Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and of the Respondent No.3 Not appearing in person or through his counsel. CRLP NO: 4558 OF 2026 Between: Sri Shaik Mohammed @ Mohammed Shaik, S/o Abdul Siddique, Aged about 53 years, Ocr:. Business, Proprietor of M/s Anas BirLny Rice Mill (Mill Code. 776737), R/ o 9-9a8/ a, Moghal pura Colony, Quilla X Road, Nizamabad, Telangana - 503001. Business Address. M/s Anas Binny Rice Mill, Door No. 347, Main road, Mathamal Village, Yellareddy Mandal, Kamareddy Distrrct, Telangana, 503122. ...Petitioner/ Accused. AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, through The Station House Officer, Police Station Yellareddy, Kamareddy District, High Court for the State of Telangana, IIydr'rab:rd- .2. The Station I-louse Officer, Police Station Yellareddy, Kamareddy District, Telangana. l]. Srikanth Kokkula, I)istrict Manager, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd (TCSCSCL), Kamarecldy District Telangana. ... Responclcnt. s Petition under Scction 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Mernorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court nray be pleased to Call for the records in FIR No.77 of 2026 dated 18-03-2026 on the file of the Policc Station Yellareddy, Karnareddl' District, and QUASH the same against the Petitioner/ Accused. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Menrorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to S'fAY all further proceedings, including the arrest of the Petitioner/ Accused, in FtR No.77 of 2026 dated 18-03-2026 on thc file of Police Station Yellareddy, Kamarecldy District, penrling disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition conring on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Crounds of C riminal Perition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gujjula Madhusutlan, Advxate for the I'etitioner.rnd the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Responilent Nos.l & 2 an<l of the Responclent No 3 not alrpearing in person or through his counsel- CRLI'NO;4559 oF 2026 Betw:c'n Sri N. Occ. [] Srinivas (a) Nangunoori Srrnivas, S/o Nangunoori pentaiah, Agecl ab6ut.l1 years, usincss, Proprietor of M/s Renuk" fr,.a"-"Affi'on" rrr, (Mill Cocle.t74560i, R/o I.A. NO:2OF 2026 'i-S-ZAZ1Z1a, Rajanagar Colony, Kamareddy, Nizamabad/Kamareddy, Telangana-503111. Business Address M/s Renuka Modern Binny Rice Mill, Door No.1-1/18, Palwancha, Macharcddy, Kamareddy District, Telangana, 503111. -.-Petitioner/ Accused. AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, through The Station House Officer, Police Station Machareddy, Kamareddy District, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Machareddy, Kamareddy District, Telangana. 3. Srikanth Kokkula, Dishict Manager,, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd (TGSCSCL), Kamareddy District, Telangana. ...Respondents. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitioo the High Court may be pleased to Call for the records in FIR No.63 of 2026 dated 2543-2026 on the file of the Police Station Machareddy, Kamareddy District, and QUASH the same against the Petitioner/ Accused. 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 STAY all further proceedings, including the arrest of the Petitioner/ Accused, in FIR No.63 of 2026 <latcd 25-03-2026 on the file of Police Station Machareddy, Kamareddy District pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearin& upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gujjula Madhusudan, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and of the Respondent No.3 not appearing in person or through his counsel. CRLP NO: 4624OF 2026 Between: Padma Swamulaiah, Son of Padma Sayanna, Age. 62 Years, Occ. proprictor of M/s Sri Kedhareshwara Rice Mill, Thimmajiwada (Daggi) (V) of Sadashiv Nagar (M) of Kamareddy Disl R/o No.8-7-78, Pedda Bazar, Near Water Tank, Nizamabad town and Disrrict (AAdhar card No.567128191200) ... Petitioner/ Accused. AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad. ..1sr Respondent/State. 2, Sri Kokkula Srikanth, Son of Ramanuiam, Age. 46 Ycars, Occ. District Manager (C.S.Corporarion), Kama Reddy Dist. ..2"r Responclent/Complainant Petition under ktion 528 of BNSS praying that in thc circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may bc pleascd to quash I.A. NO:2OF 2026 the FIR No.63 of 2026, dated 17 '.03-2026, registered with Sadashiv Nagar police stationl Kamareddy district, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon,ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case. I.lr. NO: 2OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Mr:morandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuant to thc registration of FIR No. 6j of 2026,- dated -17-03-2026, registered with sadashiv Nagar Policc station, Kamareddy district, including the iruestigation, arrest and any coercive actions against the petitioner. This Pehtion coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of tlriminal Petition and rrpon hcaring the arguments of sri Somavarapu satyanarayana, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 ancl of the Respondent No.2 not appearing in person or through his counsel. Between: Chikoti Anusha, w/o. Venkata Kishore, Age.36 years, occ. Business, R/ o. H. No. 7-g- 107. Gandhi Nagar, Raianna Sircilla District. AND ...petitioner/ Accused. -t. The State of Telangana, through S.H.O,, P.S. Thangallapalli. Rajarura Sircilla District represented by Public Prosccutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ..Respondent, ll. Singireddl' Narasimha, s/. Anji Reddy, Age. 53 years, occ. Diskict Manager (TSCSCL), Rajanna Sircilla District, Raianna Sircilla Proper and District. Cell No. 799s050723 ...Respondent/ Defacto Complaina nt. ' Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Menrorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the F.I.R.No.76 of 2026 of P.s. 't hangallapalli, Rajanna sircilla District, against the petitioner/ Accused. CRLP NO:4660 OF 2026 I.A. I{O: 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 stay of ,lljyl}. proceedings including arrest of the petitioner/ Accusecl in r.t.n. No.76 of 2026 of P.S;. Thangallapalli, Rajanna Sircilla [)istrict. This Pctition coming rrn, lor he,rring, upon perusing the Memorandum ol crounds of Criminal pctitiorr and uoon hearirrg ,t,*:,,.gr.";t, of Sri K.Venumadhav, ,{51ye6.11s 161 the P*titioner ,rnrr rhe pri,ti. p.,,',..?,i',;;;;";:i"i;'of the Respondent No.t ancl of rlrt, Respondent N..2 ,.t appearing ;n 1,.,1,,,., ,;;;fi;; his counsel. CRLP NO: 4652OF 2026 Between: Sri Yelagandala Raghuveer, S/o Yelagar.dala Narayana, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Business, Proprietor of M/ s Veerabhadra Industries (Mill Code. 1,865\, R/ o H.No. 4-90, Mohammad Nagar Village, Nizamsagar Mandal, Gunkul, Kamareddy District, Telangana - 503302. ...Petitioner/ Accused. AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Through the Station House Officer, Police Station Niz-amsagar, Kamareddy District, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Nizamsagar, Kamareddy District, Telangana. 3. Srikanth Kokkula, Dishict Manager, Telangana State Civil Suppties Corporation Ltd .TGSCSCL)' Kamareddy District' Telangana' ...Respondents. PetiLion 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 call for the records in FIR No.51 of 2026 dated 28-03-2026 on the file of Police Station Nizamsagar, Kamareddy District, and quash the same against the Petitioners/ Accused- I.A. NO: 2OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Crounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY all further proceeclings, including the arrest of the Petitioner/ Accusecl, in FIR No.51 of 2026 dated 28-03-2026 on the file of Police Station Nizamsagar, Kamareddy 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 Sri Guilula Madhusudan, Advocate for the Petitioner antl the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and of the Respondent No.3 not appearing in person or tfuough his counsel. CRLP NO: 4781 OF 2026 Between: Akula Ramesh @ Raghuram Ramesh, S/;. Ak"[ Mogilaiah, Age 42 Years, Occ Business, R/o. H. No. 9-165/4, Bhavani Nagar, Opp. Old Bus Stand, Huzurabad Proper and Mandal, Karimnagar Distric t. ...Petitioner/ Accuscd No.6. AND 1. The State of Telangana, through S.H.O., P.S. Sulthanabad, Ramagundam Commissionerate, Peddapalli District, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad- 2. Muppidi Srikanth, S/o. Venkateshwar Reddy, Age 46 Years, Occ District Manager (TGSCSCL), Pccldapalli District. R/o.H.No.2-104/144, Vijetha Green City, Thee ga I agu tta pal I i, Kar i ma nagar. CeIl No. 79950507 22. ...Rcspondcnts/ Complainant t Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Mt:morandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash th<r F.I.R.No.52 of 2o26 oi I'.s. sulthanabad, Ramagundam Commissionerate, peddipalli District against the Petitioner/ Accused No.6. I.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 stay of all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioner/ Accused No.6 in F.I.R.No.52 of 20.26 oI P.S. Sulthanabad, Ramagundam Commissionerate, peddapalli District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of (lrirninal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.Venumadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of the Respondent No.2 not appearing in person or through his counsel. CRI-P NO: 5794OF 2026 I.A. NO: 2OF 2026 Between: sri Pogartha shiva shankar, s/o Vcera Badra Rao, Aged about M years, occ. Business, Proprietor of M/s.Jagadamba Rice Mitt (Mill Cocle. 178069), R/o House No.2-63 / A/g, ThiPpapuram, vemulawada Mandal, Rajanna sircilla Disrrict, Telangana - 505302. AND ...petitioner/Accused. 1 . The State of Telangana, Itep bv its pu blic prosecutor, The Station House Officer, Police Station Jukkal, Kamarcdclv Disrrict, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2. The station Housc officer, Policc Station Jukkal, Kamareddy District, Telangana. 3. srikanth Kokkula, District Manager, l elangana state Civi.l supplies Corporation Ltd (TGSCSCL), Kamaredcly Disrrid, .l.clangana. ...Respondents. Petition under Section 528 of tsNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Mem.orandum of Grounds of Criminal pctition, the High Court may be pleased to to call for the records in FIR No.51 of 2026 clated 06-04-2026 on the file of tire Police Station Julk^I" lGmareddy District, and QUASI I the same against the petitioner/Accused. Petition under Section 52U of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Mem'>randum of Groun<rs of Criminal I'}ctition, the High court may be pleased to srAy lllu lther proceedings, including the arrest of the petirioner/ Accused, in FIR No.51 of 3i'?;3[?,fl131;1'jffil,,'],tlll,,Xf,,lt"''" Station fukkar' Kamareddf 'oi'ii.t, pendins This Petition crrmirl or cu,runar;;;,;,;;:;;'llili,J:j.II1,11,il;;.r.::T11,,Hyr1:lll*T.:,^"..;H1: Sr the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and of the Respondent No.3 not appearing in person or tfuough his counsel. CRLP NO: 5220 OF 2025 Between: Hanmandlu Konda, S/o. Kistaiah, Age- 69 Years, Occ- Proprietor of -Veeranjaneya Swamy Binny Mill, R/o.H.No.2-57, Kondapur Village, Rjampet Mandal, Kamareddy District. ...Petitioner/ Accused- AND 1. The State of Telangana, The Station House Officer, Police Station Rajam pet, rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court, High Court Building Complex at Hyderabad. ..Respondent. 2. Srikanth Kokkula, S/ o. Ramanujam, Age- 46 years, Occ- Govt. Official Non- Gazetted R/o.H.No. 1, Kamareddy Village, Kamareddy Mandal and District. ...Respondent/ Defacto 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 agairst the Petitioner/ Accused in Cr.No.28/2026 dated- 14.03.2026, of P.S Rajam pet, Kamareddy District. I.A. NO:2OF2026 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 Cr.No.28/2026 dated 14.03.2026, Offence under Section 316(2). 318(3), 318(4), 314 BNS and section 7 of ECA, P.S Rajam pet, Kamareddy District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Banda Prasada Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of tl-re Respondent No.2 not appearing in person or through his counsel. CRLP NO: 5252OF 2026 Between: 1. Vasari Ramestu S/o Punnaiah, Aged 60 years, Occ. Business R/o.Pittam village and Mandal, Kamareddy District 2. Lingala Chetan Reddy, S/o Hanmantha Reddy, Aged 38 years, Occ. Business R/o.Banswada Village and Mandal Kamareddy District. 3. Jonna Pratap Reddy, S/o Narayan Reddy Aged 62 years, Occ. Business R/o Pitlam villagc and Mandal, Kamareddy District . ...Petitioners/Accused Nos-1 to 3. AND 1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad through SHO f5 Bichkunda, Kamaredcly District. 2. Kokula Srikanth. s/o. Ramanjam, Aged 46 years, Occ. Employee, District Manager, TSCSCL, Kamareddy. ...Respondents/ Complainants- Petitron under Scction 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grou.ds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash th,: Flll No.67 of 2026 on the file of fs Bichkunda, Kamareddy aatla os-o+-2026, for rhe oflences registered U / s.316(2),316(5), 319(3) 318(4), 314 of BNS, Section 7 ECA. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Me'morandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all !!r$ql.o.""dings in FIR No.67 of 2026 on the file oi ts Bi.hkrrr,da , i(amareddy dated o5-M-2026, for the offences regisrered u / s.376(2),316(5), 318(3) 318(4), 314 of BNS, secrion 7 ECA, including arrest of the Pctitioner, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition. _ This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of (lriminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sii K.Durga prasad, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respo-ndent No.1 and of the Respondent No.2 not appearing in person or through his counsel. I.,4.. NO: 2OF 2026 CRI-P NO: 5505 OF 2026 Srikanth Kokkula District Manager, Telangana State Civil Suppl Ltd (TGSCSCL), Kamaredcly t)iskict, Telangana I.A. NO: 2OF 2O2 Bet\Meen: sri Karkala Naganath @ Karkala Nag Nad, s/o K. peerali @ Karkala piraji, Aged about 33 years, occ. Business, Lessec/ proprietor of M/s Annapoorna Binny Rice Mi[ grain coae. 1'761'45), R/o H.No. 7-98/4, putkal Viflage, Bichkunda Mandal Kamareddy District, Telangana - 503306. ...Petitioner/ Accused. The state of Telangana, Rcp. by its public prosecutor, Through the station House officer, Police station Bichkuncla, Kan-rarcddy Disrrict, High -ourt for the state of Telangana, Hyderabad. The station House officer, I'olicc station uichkunda, Kamareddy District, Telangana. ANl) -t. 2 J ies Corporation ...Respondents. 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 call for the records in FIR No.69 of 2026 ctatecl 08-M-2026 on the file-of tire police Station Bichl. unda, Kamareddy District, ancl eUASI{ thc same against the petitioner/ Accused. 6 petition under se*ion:29 :f rl\ss praying that ir.r rhe circtrmstances stated in the Mem.randum of Grounds of Crinrirrar petriicrn, tn? His',-g.,r.t ma_y be preased preased to srAy aI further proceedings, incrutrir'rg th" u..esroi the petitioner/ Accused, in FIR No.69 ;:"* " :tT:,:i"'l#'i" r#; *; :i oJ;; ;,.n B ic h k u nda. K;;;;y District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Bhargavakrishna.L, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and of the Respondent No.3 not appearing in person or tfuough his counsel. CRLP NO: 5986OF 2026 Between: Sri Mohammad Gouse @ Md. Gouse, S/o Peer Mohammed, Aged about 59 years. Occ. Business. Proprietor of M/s Peer Mohammed Binny Rice Mill (Mill Code. l73S90), R/o H.No 12-57 /1, Near Jama Masjid, Bichkunda Mandal, Nizamabad/Kamareddy District, Telangana - 503306. ...Petitioner/ Accused. AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Through the Station House Officer, Police Starion Madnoor, Kamareddy District, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Madnoor, Kamareddy District Telangana. 3. Srikanth Kokkula, District Manager, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd (TGSCS.L)' Kamareddy District' Telangana' ...Respondents. 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 call for the records in FIR No.75 of 2026 dated 76-04-2026 on the file of the Police Station Madnoor. Kamareddy District, and QUASH the same against the Petitioner/Accused, and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. I.A. NO:2OF 2026 Petition under Section 482 of Cr-P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY all further proceedings, including the arrest of the Petitioner/ Accused, in FIR No.75 of 2026 dated 1644-2026 on the file of the Police Station Madnoor, Kamareddy District, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds -of erjminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Bhargavakrishna.L, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and of the Respondent No.3 not appearing in person or through his counsel. CRLP NO: 6057 OF 2026 Between: T. Padmasri, W/o T. Baleshwar Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Proprietor of M/s. SLNS Indusrries, R/o Solipur Village, Ghanpur Mandal, Wanaparthy District. ...Petitioner/ Accused- AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Statc of Telangana. 2. Station House Officer, l,olice Station, Ghanpur, Wanaparthy District. 3. N Anfaneyulu, s/o Narsimha, Aged about 50 years, occ. District Manager, District Civil Supplies (iorporation Officc, Wanaparthy Disrrict. ...Respondents/Complainants. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the M':morandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash thrr FIR.No.37 of 2026, dated 18-04-2026 on the file of Station House bfficer, police Stition, 9J:1"!l.r wanaparthy Diskicr for the offences under sections 376(2), 216(5),31g(4) of BI\IS, 2023 and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act. I.A. NO: 2OF 2f,26 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Me morandum o{ Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to stay off all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioner in FIR No.37 of 2026,dated 18{4- 202.6 on the file of station House officer, police station, Ghanpur, wanaparthy District for the offences under sections 376(2),276(s),318(a) of BNS,2023 and seciion 7 of Essential Cornmodities Act, pending disposal of the above case. _ This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of tl1i61r.u1 Petition and upon hcaring the arguments of sri clhalakani venkat yadav, Ad'rocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and of the Respondent No.3 not appearing in person or through his counsel. CRI-P NO: 6257 OF 2026 Behveen ANt) 1. ? Renikunta Padmaja, W/o. Sri R,Shiva Kumar, Age 50 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Kagaznagar, KBM Asifabad District. Budda Madhui,W/o. Sri B.Manish, Age.41 years, Occ. Btrsiness, R/o. H.No.4_17, Lovavelly Village, Sirpur Town and Mandal, KBM Asifabacl District_ Renikunta shiva Kumar, s/o. sri Namdev, Age 52 years, occ. Business, f{/o. Kagaznagar, KBM Asifabad District. . . . Peti tioners/ Accused Nos. 7,2 &5. The state of r_elangana, Rep. by the it's public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad (Ttuough SHO, P.S. Sirpur-T) Saadala Rajitha, W/o. Pentaiah, Age_ 38 years, Occ. District Manager TGSCSCL, Kumrum Bheem Asifabad district. ,.. Respondents/Complainant. 2 petirion under secrion 529 of Bl\ss praying that in thc circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminar p"titro.,, ti'e High Court may be preased to quash the FtR No56 of 2026 and_a, it's consequentioi f.o.""aings, on the fil":a;;. sirpur_! Kumrambheern, Asifabad District, ", "g"i.ri ,f," i"t1t,o.,"..7.A. t, ,A2 ancl A.5. la. No' 2oF2026 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 stay all further proceedings pursuant to issuance of FIR No.56 of 2026, dated 05.04.2026, on the file of P.S. Sirpur-l Kumrambheem, Asifabad District, including invoking the provisions under Revenue Recovery Act as against the petitioners/ A.1., A.2 and, A.t pending disposal of this Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crirninal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Devineni Radha Rani, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of the Respondent No.2 not appearing in person or through her counsel. CRLP NO: 638.5OF 2026 Between: AIle Anvesh, s/o. Alle Sailu, (Proprietor M/s. Sri. Sai l.axmi Agro Industries, Saloora Village) Aged about 27 years, occ. Business, R/o. Saloora Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District. ...Petitioner/ Accused No.2. AND 1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad through SHO I]S Bodhan Rural, Nizamabad District 2. M.Srikanth Reddy, s/ o. not known, Aged not known to the Petitioners, Occ. Employee, District Manager, TSCSCL, Nizamabad-503001. ...Respondents/ Complainant. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Pehtion, the High Court may be pleased to quash the FIR No.3 of 2026 on the file of PS Bodhan Rural, Nizamabad dated 0541-2026, for the olfences registered U/s. 316(5), 318(4), r/w. 3(5) BNS. 7 ECA. I.A. NO:2OF2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Pctition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all proceedings in FIR No.3 of 2026 on the file of [5 Bodhan Rural, Nizamabad dated 0541,-2026, for the offences registered U/s. 316(5), 318(4), r/w. 3(5) BNS, 7 ECA, including appeararrce of the Petitioner, 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 K.Durga Prasad, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of thc Respondent No.1 and of the Respondent No.2 not appearing in person or through his counsel. CFILP NO: 6863OF 2026 Be tween: 1. Abhynay Kamalakar, S/ o. Prakash Rao, Age. 39 years, Occ. partner, Dutta Sai Modcrn Rice Milt, Tonkini village, sirpur T Mandal, Kumuram Bheem Asifabad ' District. 2. Mamatha Kamalakar, w/o. Abhynay Kamalakar, Agc 36 yeais, occ, partner, Dutta sai Modern Rice Mill, Tonkini village, sirpur T Mandal, Kumuram Bheem Asifabad District. ANrD " Petilioners/ Accused Nos-1 & 2' 1. The state of relangana, through s.H.o., p.s. sirpur-T, K,muram Bheem Asifabad Disrrict represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. .. Respondent. 2. Ms. Rajitha sadala, D/ o. Pentaiah, Age. 38 years, occ. District Manager GSCscI-), Kumuram Bheem Asifabad District, Asilabad, Cell No. 9297423643. ... Respondent/ Defacto Complainant. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Mernorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the F.l.R-No.57 of 2026, of P.s. sirpur-T, Kumuram Bheem Asifabad Disrrict, against the petitioners/ Accused Nos. 1 and 2. I.A. NO: 2OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Menrorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court mav bc pleasecl to stay of a[[ further proceedings including arrest of the petitioners/ Acctrsecl i{os_ 1 anci 2 in F.l.R.No.57 of 2026, of P.S. Sirpur-T, Kumuram Bheem Asifatrad District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum.f Grounds of C,iminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri K.vcnumaclhav, Advocate for the I'etitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of the Respondent No.2 not appearing in person or tluough her counsei.

5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE J. SREENTVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 2809, 957, 98L, 1620, 2604, 2AlA, 2853,2856, 2857,2977, 3143, 3144,3145, 3205, 4058, 4145, 4249,4250, 43L6, 436L, 4383, 4482, 4660,4ffi2,478L, 5L94, 6385 2928,2944,3028, 3029, 3426, 3433, 3587, 3921, 4255, 4256, 4257, 4259, 4483,4485,4486, 4558, s22O,5252,5505, 5986, and 6863 of2026 3074, 4024, 4260, 4559, 60.s7, 3t42, 4027, 4261, 4624, 6251, DATE: ()5.05.2026 Betseen: Crl.P.No.28O9 of 2o26 Kasam Sathvik AND State of Telangana and another Crl.P.No.9S7 of 2o126 Ch. Ravikanth AND The State of Telalgana and another Crl.P.No.981 of 2o126 Smt. Kottam Veena@K. Veena AND The State of Telangana artd two others Petitioner . ... Respondents .... Petitioner/accused .. . Respondents Petitioner/ accused . . . Respondents

6 Crl.P.No.1620 of 2o26 Battini Meena Reddy (@ B. Meena Reddy ..Petitioner/accused AND The State of Telangana and two others ....Respondents Crl.P.No.25O8 of 2026 Mohd. Waheed .. .. Petitioner/ accused AND State of Telangana and another ...Respondents Crl.P.No.281a of 2o26 Konda Laxmaiah ... . Petitioner/ accused AND The State ofTelangana and another ... . Respondents Crl.P.No.2853 of 2026 M/s. Sri Lakshrni Venkateshwara Rice Mill ... . Petitioner/ accused AND The State ofTelangana and another . . ..Responden ts Crl.P.No.2856 of 2026 Sanka Rajendra Prasad and four others ....Petitioners/accused Nos.I, 2 and 4 to 6 AND The State o['I'elangana and another . . .. Respondents

Crl.P.No.2857 of 2o26 Padma Kandukuri AND The State of Telangana and another Crl.P.No.2917 of 2o.26 Musku Ranjith Reddy @ M. Ranjith Reddy AND The State of Telangana and two others CrLP.No.2928 of 2o.26 Konda Venkanna AND The State of Telangana and another Crl.P.No.2944 of 2o26 Gattu Sravan AND The State of Telangana and another Crl.P.No.3O28 of 2o26 Rathod Dinesh AND The State of Telangana and two others . . . . Petitioner/ accused No.3 ... . Respondents ....Petitioner/accused . ... Respondents . . . . PetiLioner/ accused .. .. Responden ts ...Petitioner/accused . ... Respondents ....Petitioner/ accused Responden ts

8 Crl.P.No.3O29 of 2026 Chavan Rohidas (@ Chowan Rohidas AND The State ofTelangana and two others Crl.P.No.3O74 of 2026 Medam Krishnamurthy AND The State ofTelangana and another Crl.P.No.3142 of 2o26 Ramesh Rajanna Chiliveri @ Chiliveri Ramesh AND The State ofTelangana and two others Crl.P.No.3l43 of 2026 Mashetty Radha K nshna AND State of Telangana and another Crl.P.No.3144 of 2026 Edukulla Damodar AND State of Telangana and another . Petitioner/ accused ... . Respondents . . Petitioner/ accused No.3 ....Respondents Petitioner . ..Respondents .. .. Petitioner/accused No. 1 ....Respondents ... Petitioner/ accused No. 1 ....Respondents

9 Crl.P.No.3l45 of 2o26 Edukulla Damodar and another .... Petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 AND The State of Telangana and another . . .. Respondents Crl.P.No.32O6 of 2026 V. Ravi Kumar ....Petitioner/accused AND State of Telangana and another ....Respondents Crl.P.No.3426 of 2026 Smt. S. Ajitha ....Petitioner/accused AND The State of Telangana and two others . .. Responden ts Crl.P.No.3433 of 2o26 Jaggappa @ Baoja Jaggappa ...Petitioner/accused AND The State o[ Telangana and another ....Respondents Crl.P.No.3587 of 2o26 Sri Bumgu BaIa Kishan ....Petitioner/ accused No. 6 AND The State of Telangana and another ....Respondents

IO Crl.P.No.392l of 2o26 Mashetty Radha Krishna AND The State of Telalgana and another CrI.P.No.4O24 of 2026 Mahammod Tajuddin AND The State of Telalgana ald two others Crl.P.No.4O27 of 2026 Rahul Chinuri AND The State of Telangana and two others Crl.F.No.4O58 of 2o26 Nikhil Yadav Totavar and two others AND State of Telangana and another Crl.P.No.4145 of 2026 Smt. E. Godawari AND The State ofTelangana and two others Petitioner/ accused ...Respondents . . . . Petitioner/ accused ....Respondents Petitioner/ accused ...Respondents . Petitioners/accused Nos.l to 3 .. ..Respondents Petitioner/ accused . ... Respondents

lt Crl.P.No.4249 of 2o26 Sri Bachu Krishna Murthy @ Krishnamurthy Bachchu ....Petitioner/accused AND The State of Telangana and two others ....Respondents Crl.P.No.425O of 2o26 Saheb Rao Are ....Petitioner/accused AND State of Telangana and another . ...Respondents Crl.P.No.42S5 of 2o26 Dawood Shaik ....Petitioner/accused AND The State of Telangana and two others ....Respondents Crl.P.No.42S6 of 2026 Srinivasulu Baindla ....Petitioner/accused AND The State of Telangana and two others ....Respondents Crl.P.No.4257 of 2026 Sri Sailu Kummari ....Petitioner/accused AND The State of Telangana and two others Crl.P.No.4259 of 2026 .. . . Respondents

t2 Sri Kondhuri Yadhagiri @ Yadhagiri Kodhuri AND The State of Telangana and two others Crl.P.No.4260 of 2o26 Sri Srinivas Muppidi AND The State of Telangana and two others Crl.P.No.426l of 2o26 Shekar Maddineni AND State of Telangana and another Crl.P.No.4316 of 2026 Konda Siddi Ramulu AND The State of Telangana and another Crl.P.No.436L of 2026 Vudugula Laxman AND The State of Telangana and two others CrI.P.No.43a3 of 2026 .. Petitioner/accused Respondents . . . . Petitioner/ accused .Respondents . Petitioner/accused Respondents Petitioner/ accused . Respondents Petitioner/ accused ..Respondents Paidi Suresh Reddy . Pe ti t.ioner/accused

l3 AND The State of Telangana and another ....Respondents Crl.P.No.4482 of 2o26 Sri Maddikunta Narsa Goud and two others .... PetiLioners / accused Nos.l to 3 AND The State of Telangana and two others ... .Respondents Crl.P.No.4483 of 2o26 Smt. Maddikunta Vanaja .. . . Petitioner/accused AND The State of Telangana ald two others ....Respondents Crl.P.No.4485 of 2o26 Sri Musthyala Sridhar ....Petitioner/accused AND The State of Telangana and two others ....Respondents Crl.P.No.4486 of 2026 Sri Panthangi Ramakrishna @ Panthangi Rama Krishan ....Petitioner/accused AND The State of Telangana and trvo others ....Respondents Crl.P.No.4SS8 of 2026 Sri Shaik Mohammed @ Mohammed Shaik ....Petitioner/accused AND The State of Telangana and two others . . ..Respondents

T4 CrI.P.No.4559 of 2o26 Sri N. Srinivas @ Nangunoori Srinivas AND The State of Telangana and two others Crl.P.No.4624 of 2o26 Padma Swamulaiah AND The State of Telangana and another Crl.P.No.466O of 2o26 Chikoti Anusha AND The State of Telangana and another Crl.P.No.4662 of 2o26 Sri Yelagandala Raghuveer AND The State of Telangana arld two others Crl.P.No.4781 of 2o26 Akula Ramesh @ Raghuram Ramesh AND The State of Telangana and another Ctl.P.No. 51 94 of 2026 .. Peti tioner/ accused Respondents Petitioner/ accused . Respondents Peti tioner/ accused Respondents , . Petitioner/ accused Respondents Petitioner/accused No. 6 Sri Pogartha Shiva Shankar . Respondents

15 AND The State of Telangana and two others Crl.P.No.5220 of 2026 Hanmandlu Konda AND The State of Telangana and another Crl.P.No.5252 of 2o26 Vasari Ramesh and two others AND State of Telangana and another Crl.P.No.55OS of 2o26 Sri Karkala Naganath @ Karkala Nag Nad AND The State of Telangana and two others Crl.P.No.5986 of 2o.26 Sri Mohammad Gouse @ Md. Gouse AND The State of Telangana and two others Crl.P.No.6O57 of 2o26 ....PetiLioner/accused ...Respondents ....Petitioner/accused . ...Respondents ...Petitioners/accused Nos. I to 3 ....Respondents . .. . Petitioner/accused . ..Respondents .... Petitioner/accused ...Respondents T.Padmasri AND ... Petitioner/accused

16 The State of Telangana and two others . Respondents Crl.P.No.625l of 2026 Renikunta Padmaja and two others . . . . Pelitioners / accused Nos.l, 2 and 5 AND The State of Telangana and another . .. . Re spondents Crl.P.No.638S of 2o26 Alle Anvesh Petitioner/accused No. 2 AND State of Telangana and another . . Respondents Crl.P.No.6863 of 2026 Abhynay Kamalakar and another ....Petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 AND The State of Telangana and another ....Respondents : COMMON ORDER: Crl.P.No.2809 of 2026 has been liled by the petitioner/accused under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2O23 (for short, the BNSSJ, seeking to quash the proceedings in F.l.R.No.32 of 2026 of Kethapally Police Station, Nalgonda District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(5) and 3 I8(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (tor short, the BNS) and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, .8.C. Act').

L7

2.

The otler criminal petitions have been filed by the petitioner/s seeking to quash the proceedings which are set out in a tabular form for the following offences: Crl.P.No. F.I.R.No. NaEe of the Police StatioD I{aEe of the District Registercd for the ofreltces 9s7 12026 95 of 2024 KataraJn Jayashankar Bhupalapally 4O3, 42O, 406 of IPC 981 12026 25 of 2026 Kothakota Wanapartiy 316(2), s 16(s), 3 r8(4) of tle BNS and S.7 of E-C. Act L62O /2026 15 of 2026 Bhainsa Rura.l Nirm al s.3r6(2),316(5), 318(4) of the BNS 2608 12026 28 of 2o26 Kotagiri Nizamabad S- 316(s), 3 r8(4) of the BNS & S.7 of the E.C-Act 2818 /2026 75 ot 2026 Nalgonda Il Town NaJgonda s.316(2),316(s), 318(3) of the BNS & S.7 of the E-C.Act 28s3 12026 47of 2027 Nelakondapalli Khammam s.3r6(2),316(s), 318(a), 6r(2) of the BNS & S.7 of the E,C.Act 2as6 12026 3a of 2026 Chityal Nalgonda Nalgonda s.31612),3r6(s), 3r8(3),3r8(4) r/w.3{5) of the BNS & S.7 of the E-C.Act 2as7 /2026 38 ot 2026 Chityd s.316(2),3r6{s}, 318(31,3r8{4) r/w.3(5) of the BNS & s.7 0f the E.c-Act 2917 12026 22 ot 2026 Bhainsa Nrrmal s 3 r 6(2), 316(s), 318[4) of the BNS 2s28 12026 76 ot 2026 NalBonda II Town Nalgond:r s. 316(2), 3 r6{s), 3 r 8(3) of the BNS & S.7 of the E.C-Act 2944 12026 37 of 2026 Nalgonda Rural NaJgonda s.3r6{2),316(5), 318(3) r/w.3{S)of the BNS 3028 12t26 30 of 2026 Narsapur Nirmal Nirmal s.3r6(2),3r6{s), 318(31 of the BNS & s.7 0f the E.c.Act 3029 12026 29 oi 2026 Narsapur s. 316(2),3r6(s), 318(3) of thc BNS & s.7 0f the E.c.Act 3074 12026 36 of 2026 Nalgonda Rural Nalgonda s.3r6(2),3r6(s), 3 r813), 3 r8(4) r/w.3{5} of the BNS 3t42 12026 lO of 2026 Yergatla Nizamabad S 316(s), 3 I8(4) of the BNS & S.7 of the E C.Act 3143 /2026 36 of 2026 Nalgonda Rural s.3r6(2),316(5), 3 r 8{3}, 3 r8(4) r/w.315) of the BNS & S.7 of the E-C.Act Nalgonda

18 NaJgonda Na.tgonda 4257 /2026 4259 / 2O2(, 36 of 2026 28 of 2026 5l of 2026 50 of 2026 3 t of 2026 62 of 2026 55 of 2026 a2 ot 2026 55 ot 2026 a3 of 2026 49 ot 2O2(t Mungode s.3r6(2),3r6(s), 3I8(31 of the BNS & S.7 of the E-C-Act 3144 /2026 3145 /2026 28 ot 2026 36 ot 2026 Nalgonda Rural r of the BNS w-3 5 s.3r6(2),316{51, 3r8(3),318(4) 3206 /2026 39 ot 2026 Varni Nizamabad S- 316(5),3I8(a) of the BNS & S.7 of the E.C.Act 3426 /2026 69 ot 2026 Niza-rnabad Rural Nizamabad S.3I6(s) 318(41 of the BNS & S.7 of the E.C.Act s433 12026 5 of 2026 Sirgapur Sangareddy S- 316(2), 316(s) of the BNS & S.7 of the E.C-Act 3587 /2026 Nalgonda Rura-l NaJongda r of the BNS w.3 5 316(2),3r6(s), 318(31, 3 r8(41 Mungode Nalgonda Pitlam Kamareddy Pitlam Kamareddy s.3r6(2),3r6{s}. 318(3) of the BNS & S-7 of the E.C-Act s.316(2),316(s), 3r8(3),3r8(41,314 of the BNS & S.7 of the E.C.Act s.316(2),316{s), 318(31, sr8(4),3t4 of the BNS & S-7 of the E.C.Acr 3921 /2026 4024 /2026 4027 /2026 4O5a 12026 Nasrullabad Kamareddy Sadashiv Nagar Kamareddy s.3r6(2),3r6(5), 3 t 8(3) r/w,3{51 of the BNS & S.7 of the E-C.Act s.316(2),3r6(s), 3r8(3),318(41,3r4 of the BNS & s.7 of the E.C.Act Machareddy Kamareddy s.3r6(2),3r6(s), 3r8(3),3r8t41,3r4 of the BNS & s.7 ot the E.C.Act Birkur Kamareddy 316(2),31s(3), 318(3) of the BNS & S.7 of the E.C. Acr Nagireddypet Kamareddy s.3r6(21,3r6(s), 3 r8(3), 3 r8(4), 3 r4 ofthe BNS & S 7 of the E.C-Acr 4 r45 12026 4249 /2026 4250 /2O2{t 42s5 /2026 4256 12026 Na8iredd)pet Kamareddy s. 316(2),316(s), 3r8(3),3r8(41,3r4 of the BNS & S.7 of the E,C.Act Lingampet Kamareddy s.316(2),316{sl, 318(31,318(4),314 of the BNS & S.7 of the E.C Act Yellareddy Kamareddy s,3 r6(2), 316(s), 318(3),3t8{4),314 of the BNS & S.7 of 7 5 of 2026 the E.C Acr

r9 4260 /2026 54 of 2026 Nagireddj4)et Kamareddy s.316(2),3r6{s}, 3r8(3),3r8(41,3r+ of the BNS & S.7 of the E.C.Act 4261 /2026 41 of 2026 Birkur Kamareddy s.316(2l. s l6(s), 3 l8(3) of the BNS & S.7 of the E-C. Act 4316 /2026 27 of 2026 Rajampet Kamareddy s.316(2),316(s), 3 18(3), 3 r8(4), 314 of the BNS & S.7 of the E-C-Act 4361 /2026 47 of 2026 Nizamsagar Kamareddy s. 3 r 6(2), s 16(s), 31a(3) of the BNS & S-7 of the E.C.Act 4383 12026 6l of 2026 Sadashiv Nagar Kamareddy s. sl6(2),3r6(s), 3r8{3),3r8(4),3r4 of the BNS & S-7 of the E.C.Act 4482 /2026 62 of 2026 Ramareddy Kamareddy s. 3r612),316(5), 3 r8(3), 3 r8{4), 314 of the BNS & S.7 of the E.C.Act 44a3 /2026 6l of 2026 Rarnareddy Kamareddy s,3r6(2),316(s), 3 r 8(31, 3r8(4), 3r4 of the BNS & S.7 of the E.C.Act 44a5 /2026 74 of 2026 Yellareddy Kamareddv s. 3r6(21,3l6ls), 318(3),31814),314 of the BNS & S.7 of the E.C.Act 4486 12026 76 of 2026 Yellareddy Kamareddy s. 3r6(2),3r6(s), 3 r 8(3), 3r8(4), 3r4 ot the RNS & S-7 of the E.C.Act 45s8 12026 77 of 2026 Yellareddy Kamareddy s. 3 r6{2), 3 r6(sl, 3r8(3),3r8(4),3r4 of the BNS & S,7 of the E C.Act 4ss9 12026 63 of 2026 Machareddy Kamareddy s,3r6{2},3r6(s), 3 t 8(3), 318(al of the BNS & S 7 ofthe E.C Act 4624 12026 63 of 2026 Sadashiv Nagar Kamareddy s.3r6(21,3r6(s), 318(3),318(41,3r4 of the BNS & S.7 of the E.C.Act 4660 12026 76 ot 2026 Thangallapalli Rajanna Sircilla s.3 l8(4), 3 r6(2). 3 t6(51, 318(3) of the BNS & S.7 ot the E-C. Act 4662 /2026 5l of 2026 Nizarnsagar Kamareddy s 316(21. 3 r6(sl, 3 l8(3) of the BNS & S,7 of the E.C.Act 478L 12026 52 oI 2026 Sultharlabad Ramagundam s.3r6(21,31615), 3 t8(a) r/w 3(5) of the BNS & S-7 o[ the E C. Act s r94 /2026 5l of 2026 Jukka.l Kamareddy s, 3 r 6{21, 316(5), 3r8(3),3r8(4),314 oftheBNS&S7of the E.C.Act

20 5220 /2026 5252 /2026 ssos /2026 6057 12026 625 r /2026 56 of 2026 638s /2026 37 ot 2026 3 of 2026 Bodhan Rural

3.

The issue involved in these criminal petitions is one and the same. Henc<:, all these cnminal petitions are clubbed together and being disposed of by way of a common order.

4.

For the facility of reference, the facts from CrI.p-No.2gO9 of 2026 are being referred to.

5.

Brief facts of the case:

5.1.

On 23.O2.2026, respondent No.2-The District Manager, TGSCSCL, Naglonda, lodged a complaint stating that the Government entrusted the paddy to M/s.Chamundeshwari Agro Industries, Uppalapahad, Kethepally, and entered into ax agreement with Rice Milier for Cusrom Milting of paddy KMS 2O22-2g (Karif & Rabi) (for 2a ot 2026 Rajampet Karnareddy 3r6(2),3r6{5), 3r8(3),3r8(4),314 of the BNS & s.7 of the E.C. Act 67 of 2026 69 of 2026 75 of 2026 Bichkunda Kamareddy s. 316(2), 316(s), 318(3),318(4),3r4 of the BNS & S.7 of the E.C-Act Bichkunda Kalnareddy s.316{2),316(s), 3r8(3),3r8(4),314 of the BNS & S.7 of the E.C.Act 5986 12026 Madnoor Kamareddy s. 3 r 6(2), 3 r6(s), 318(3),318[4),314 of the BNS & S-7 of the E.C.Act Ghanpur Wanaparthy s.316(2),316(s), 318(4) of the BNS & s.7 0f the E-c. Act Sirpur T Kumrambheem Asifabad s,3r6(2),316(s), 3r8{3),318(4} r/w.3(5J of rhe BNS & S.7-A of the E.C-Act Nizamabad s.316(s),318(4) r/w.3(5) of the BNS & S.7 of the E.C.Act

2T short, 'AgreementJ for the purpose of milling and delivery of Custom Milled Rice (CMR). The petitioner, namely Kasam Sathvik, being the proprietor/representative of the said mill, was acting as an agent of Telangana State Civil Supplies CorporaLion Limited (for short, the Corporation') and held the paddy in a fiducia4r capacity, with ownership remaining vested in the Corporation. It is furttrer stated that the paddy was procured from farmers under Minimum Support Price (MSP) and the same was transported various agencies including to the petitioner's rice mill and the same was duly acknowledged by the miller, who was obligated to deliver rice at prescribed out-turn ratios. After milling and partial lifting through e-auction, a balance quantity of paddy was required to be available in the mill. However, upon receipt of credible information regarding misappropriation, a joint inspection was conducted on 16.1O.2O25. As per records, 13,967.186 MTs of paddy ought to have been available, but physical verification revealed nil stock, resulting in total shortage of paddy is 13,967,186 MTs. The miller failed to account for the shortage despite noLices and also failed to clear the dues. The petitioner could not salisfactorily explain the shortfall of the stock worth Rs.34,10,64,715/-. As per the Agreement, such shortage entails recovery at penal rates and the misappropriation of Government paddy worth Rs. 45,36, l6,O7l/- has caused substantial loss to the public exchequer and adversely affected the Public Distribution

22 System (PDS)- Hence, the present complaint is lodged for the offences under Sections 316(2), 316(5) and 3f 8(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhi ta, 2023 (for short, 'the BNS') and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, 'the E.C. ActJ.

6.

Insofar as other criminal petitions are concemed, the allegations levelled in the complaints in respect of allotment of total paddy, CMR delivered by the petitioners, shortfall of paddy and other particulars are set out in the following tabular for.m: Crl-P.No. 957 2026 981 2026 r620 2026 2604 2026 2818 2026 After rnilling paddy to be available ia the rice mill Iorl After milling rice to be delivered {MTsl 2948 080 5774 36a 5096 255 6620.430 328r5.800 2 r99.368 7382 831 7382.U31 8481 .735 8 r 76. O59 t6265.657 2873.742 2.108.091 t 657 6.620 t7761O40 t6782.78r 67 50.O21 t67a2 7Ar 37 62_76J 252t.O48 120:\.440 813.540 97 3t3.O7I 65 75 369 24722.12() t 657 6.620 3587 2026 :t92 | 2026 9927 760 +024 2026 6750.O21 327aO 8o0 21963. t 30 Paddy lifted by the bidder/ Delivered CMR (MTsl Balancc paddy to bc aYailablc i! the raill lMTsl Shortfall (MTsl Worth of Eisapptopriated paddy, along with petralty aEd iEtcrest (I! Rs.l 2003.833 t409.324 1409.324 4,26,4a,216/ - 2697 .480 4592.370 3824.s30 13, 14,94,51O/ - 20a7 .aoo 4490.230 4490-230 17,18,04,4 t51- 6620.430 6620.430 2,69,52,235 / I02 1 .53 7 3 t794.263 7811.O40 25,36,ar,256 / - t42.986 2056.3a2 2942.647 to ,aa 39 ,646 / r 424.980 5953.85 r 5953.851 19,33,64,859/- r428_9aO 5953.851 5953.851 19,33,64 859 2853 /2026 2856 /2026 2457 12026 2917 12026 2924 /2026 2833.052 5648.683 5648.851 2L 4A 57 ,299 Total Paddy allotted (MTsl 4400. t2() 86 ra.46() 7606 36() 170 L 6.800 44350.560 32a2.64 0 r l8r 3 280 I r8l3 280 9477 .120 12856.200 r 50.ooo 8026.O59 8026.O59 26,06,64,4861- 245.265 15490.392 r5890.392 5 r,89,99,505/ - 809.799 36a3.719 3683.719 v ,60 ,46 ,187 / L 350.122 3758.213 3758.213 15,05,79 l03 3142 /2026 3029 2026 _2944 12026 3028 /2026 3074 /2026 4377.50A 12t99.t12 6766.2t1 2t 97 48,06 r 21724.480 2 5953.200 24722. t20 4492.640 5773.320 l60l r.o40 1601r.o40 6 34,77 394 4377 .50A t2t99.tt2 6766.2r t 97 48 06r r644.584 1782.505 450.000 I 46,t4 772 24722. r2.J 24722.r2(] 9927.760 4377 .508 t2199 112 6766.211 l6 52,24, 106 17 3.7 50 s458.367 3458.367 8 7 I ,97 143 3I43 :1426 3t44 .f2o6 3 t45 2026 2026 2026 2026 2026 t 34.357 r34.357 45 79,245.29 :t433 2026 7 t6.2A6 l I 7.00 5064.178 4083.498 13,19 5 r,861 4377.50a I2L99.t12 6766.21t 2t 97 ,48 06r r 782 505 450.000 1644 .5a4 19175 370 4 r60.830 4 t 60.830 |,46,14 772 85,65 ,3 66.80 r4208.960 1420A.960 9 2 2 62 2 6 5 o 6 4027 2026 48509 200 3 250 L I 60 2298t t50

23 7 - Mr- R.N. Hemandranath Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Sannapaneni l,ohit, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.2809 of 2026; Mr- Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior counsel representing Mr. K. Venkataramanaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.Nos.28l8,292a and 2944 of 2026; Mr. K. Buchi Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner ln Crl.P.No.957 ot 2026; Mr. L. Bhargavakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner in 4058 /2026 41568.800 27 85 L .060 17927 .560 1481o.870 9447.240 2r,917,596.4O/ - 4145 /2026 4 t77 | .600 27946.9o0 2l460.OOO 2a63.250 2463.250 2,26,00,860I - 4249 /2026 I9a50_400 t3299.770 6960.OOO 9462-340 9462.340 2,t9,52,624.aO I - 4250 12026 29676.4o0 19883,190 t r97a.760 I1798.000 I t 798.000 27 ,37 1,360 / - 4255 12026 2632 | .200 17635.200 12855.320 7 t34.r40 7134.140 1,46,92,O21.40l- 4256 /2026 25958.800 17405.790 A344.210 4509.820 4509.420 92,4t,291.2O / - 4257 12026 22t75.200 14837 .280 12094.770 4093.260 4093.260 a4 ,22 3A t .60 I 4259 12026 34241.2o0 25621.600 2124a.860 6534.750 3534.750 1,34,61,585/ - 4260 12026 30305.600 20304.75 t7 t32.450 4736.250 4736.250 97,56,675/- 426t /2026 40t72.OO 26915.240 r3630.OOO 19429.320 t7947.320 4r,637,759.201 43L6 12026 23402.400 t5947 .6LO 8700.ooo r0817.320 LOarT .320 2,50,96,r42.401 - 4361 12026 t33647 .200 86879.950 643V).24O 29463.3LO 233E3. r 50 4,93,92,754.39 / - 4383 /2026 14957.600 1002 r .590 5727.190 6409.560 6409.560 1,32,O3,693.@ I - 44a2 12026 70425.600 47185.I50 22330.OOO 37097.230 37097.230 8,60,65,573.60/ 44a3 /2026 47755.6@ 3 r896.250 t42to.oo 26546.630 26546.230 6,15,88, r8 r.60/- 4485 12026 r 3997.800 937A.520 7457.NO 2467.640 2467.640 59,O7 ,420.40 I - 44a6 12026 28174.4o0 r8877.380 16508.960 3535.500 3535.500 72,79,635.80 / 4558 12026 26246.400 t7584.470 r3250.O50 6470.200 6470.2o0 r,33,O 1,068l- 4559 /2026 1794 r .600 t2020 -a70 4880.700 10656.970 10656.970 2,47,24,170.40I - 4624 12026 I1959.600 8012,930 37 t9.960 6407.+20 6407.420 I ,31,99,2A5.20 / 4660 /2026 2596.24O 1739,508 L270.623 t270.623 4,12,A9,245/- 4662 /2026 47 663.200 31934.340 2A4 L2-420 5047 -320 5256.600 t,oa,o7 ,664 / - 47aL 12026 8096.680 5505.742 1o88.456 6462-237 6165-357 t9,89,a9,202 I 5194 /2026 7 6524.400 5 t274.O30 r 1733.300 590 r 5.790 5649r.960 13,1O,79,707 / 5220 12026 24 tO9.200 16153. 160 3 r 58.100 186.46.350 r2369.950 2,46,94,244 I - 5252 /2026 135468.200 90763_370 36167.6tO 80620.060 54997.1@ r2,35,93,83 r.20l 55Os 12026 257 66.800 17263.750 tt629.O70 8405.920 8405.920 r,73,t2,O34.2O / - 5986 12026 5l t79_690 34290.390 196 r 2.150 2190? .430 21907 .430 4,51,2a,614.80/ - 6057 /2026 7303.560 4893.385 3429.O42 34ts.762 12,29,53,O?O/ 6251 12026 2936.52{0 1967 .464 744.219 1825.744 1825.744 6,91,95,1I? I 638s /2026 8784.t7 | 5900,43 I 2024.570 4844.827 4844.827 18,23,33,730_40 / Crl.P.Nos.98 1, t62O, 29t7, 3O2a, 3029, 3142, 3426, 4024, 4027,

24 4145, 4482, 4483, 4485, 4486, 5194, 55O5 and 5986 of 2026, representing Mr. Gujjula Madhusudan, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.Nos.4249, 4255, 4256, 4257, 4259, 4260, 436I, 4558, 4559 and 4662 of 2026; Mr. K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.Nos.260 8,3206.4058, 4250, 4261 , 5252and 6385 of 2026; Mr.C.Hari Preeth, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.Nos.2856, 2857,3143, 3144, 3145 and 392t of 2026; Mr. N. Keerthi Simha, learned counset for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.3074 of 2026: Mr. K. Naresh, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.3587 of 2026. Mr. Somavarapu Satyanaraya, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.Nos.4316 and 4624 of 2026; Mr.K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.Nos.466O, 4781 and 6863 of 2026; Mr. Banda Prasada Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.522O of 2026: Mr. Praveen Kumar Veerjala, learned counsel for the petitioner in CrI.P.No.2S 53 of 2026;

25 Mr. N. Manohar, learned counsel for tJre petitioner ln Crl.P.No.3433 of 2O26; Mr. V. Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for tJle petitioner in Crl.P.No.4383 of 2026; Mr. Chalakani Venkat Yadav, learned counsel for t}le petitioner in Crl.P.No.6057 of 2026; Mrs. Devineni Radha Rani, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.625l of 2026, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondent No.2; and learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1/State SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS :

8.

Mr. R. N. Hemendranath Reddy, learned Senior Counsel in Crl.P.No.28O9 of 2026: 8. l. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falseiy implicated in the present case. There are no allegations, much less specific allegations, against the petitioner. The entire allegations are levelled against M/s.Chamundeswari Agro Industries Private Limited (for short, 'CAIPL]. However, respondent No.2 in his complaint it is stated that an amount of Rs.45,36 ,16,O7l l- to be recovered from 26 M/s.Sumanjali PBI PVT, Nalgonda. Therefore, the petitioner is no way concerned with the present crime. Respondent No.2 filed complaint mechanically without arraying CAIpL as an accused and the petitioner has been implicated solely on the ground that he is the Managing Director of CAIPL and the same is not permissible under law.

4.2.

He further submitted that even if the allegations levelled in the complaint taken face value, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 316(21, 3f 6(5) and 318(3) of the BNS are not attracted agajnst the petitioner. The petitioner is neither an agent nor arr employee; the work entrusted under the Agreement was purely in the nature of job work. The Corporation themselves voluntarily supplied the paddy to CAIPL for the purpose of custom milling on pa5rment of milling charges and other charges and CMR to be delivered to the Government.

8.3.

He also submitted that the offence under Section 3lB(5) of the BNS is not attracted, as the petitioner does n<rt come within the ambit of agent as defined under Section 182 of the Contract Act, 1472- The nature of the work entrusted to the petitioner falls within the Job work" as dehned under sub-section (6g) of Section 2 of the Central Goods and Service Tax, 2OlZ.

27

8.4.

Respondent No.2/District Manager of the Corporation lodged a complaint, without hauing authority or competency. As per G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 18.10.2022 issued by the Government of Telangana, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I.CCS) Department, the Collector is only the competent authorigr to lodge complaint. Even according to the Agreement, the Commissioner of Civil Supplies or MD, TSCSCL or Collector/Additional Collector/District Manager in writing to act on behalf of the Corporation. In the absence of any such authorization, respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint and the same is not maintainable under law.

8.5.

He further submitted that the Agreement contains various terms and conditions, including Clause I3(4), which provides that, in the event of any dispute arising in relation to tlre Agreement, the szune shall be referred to an Arbitrator. He submitted that despite the existence of this arbitration clause, the Corporation has not invoked the said clause, on the other hand, Iiled the present .complaint.

8.6.

Clause 14 of the Agreement stipulates all disputes arising under the Agreement shall be filed in the competent civil Court. Respondent No.2 ought to have approached the competent civil Court and filed a suit for recovery of the alleged due amount for non-

2a delivery of the CMR equivalent to the paddy supplied, on the other hand liled the present complaint by giving criminal colour. 4.7 . As per the Agreement, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.23 dated I8.1O.2O22, framed the Operational Guidelines for Procurement of Paddy and Delivery of Custom Milling Rice for the Kariff Marketing Season 2022-23, wherein it is mentioned that the Corporation/Government has to allot maxlmum limit of paddy 800O MTs only to Rice Mills. However, the Corporation allotted huge substarrdard quantit5r of 23,405.280 MTs of paddy to CAIPL. During the Kariff season 2022-23, due to heavy rains, the paddy stored in the mills was damaged. The Rice Millers Association of Telangana State, submitted representations to the Ministry of Civil Supplies on 07.06.2023 and 19.O6.2023 explaining the problems being faced by the millers due to untimely rains drenched paddy from PPCs for custom milling for Rabi 2022-2023. Based on the said representations and the report of the Commissioner, TSCSCL, dated 24.07.2023, the Government of Telangana, issued G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 1O.O8.2O23 constituting a committee to suggest measures for enhancement of milling capacity in the State and modalities for auction of surplus paddy and to decide auction price. Thereafter, the Government issued another G.O. Ms. No. I dated 25.O1.2024 constituting a State Level Committee (SLC) for auctron of surplus

29 stock of paddy lying in the mills pertaining to Rabi 2022-23 by calling for fresh global e-tenders.

8.8.

He a-lso submitted that on O1.O3.2O24, the Ministry of Consumer Alfairs, Food and Public Distribution Department of Food and Public Distribution issued proceedings directing the District Managers, Corporation/DcsOs not to deliver CMR against Rabi 2022-23 paddy quantities allotted to successful bidders finaJiz.ed. through tenders. The Corporation had issued e-Tender Reference on 25.01.2024 for sale of Rabi 2022-23 FAQ paddy procured under MSP operations by TSCSCL through e-tender platform. The Government of Telangana, wherein it is stated that the paddy stock has to be physically inspected by the interested bidders, the paddy stocks are offered 'as is where is' basis. Pursuant to the tender, M.s.Suvarchala Trading Company and M/s.Trimaxi Agro Enterprises were declared as successful bidders and the bidders lifted entire paddy.

8.9.

He further submitted that Corporation issued a notice dated 3L.1O.2O25 directing the CAIPL to pay an amount of Rs.43,99,73,483/- within a period of seven days alleging that there is a shortfall of 13,967.186 MTs of paddy stocks, worth Rs.34,10,64;715/-, in the said rice mill and due to non-supply of CMR as per the Agreement, the petition€r is liable to pay for defaulted paddy at 125%o of the rates of CMR along with interest @ l2o/o per

,l 30 annum and also the Corporation shall invoking the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner submitted a comprehensive reply on 03.11 .2025 denying the allegations made in tlle said notice and requested to withdraw the same. Respondent No.2, without passing any order on the said reply, lodged the presenl complaint only with an intention to recover the alleged amount mentioned in the notice dated 31.lO.2O25 by giving a criminal colour, which is not perm.issible in law. Due to tlle pressures of the respondents, the petitioner Mill paid an amount of Rs. t2,f B,OO,400/- to the bidder and the said lirms were remitted the amount to the Government in respect of the paddy supplied by the Corporation.

8.10.

He further submitted that the Corporation has not conducted a proper enquiry and has not submitted any iota of evidence as to how it arrived at the alleged shortfall of paddy, and that the alleged inspection was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. In the absence of such material, claimed huge amounts by issuing notices and the petitioner is not liable to pay the alleged amount. 8.1 l. He also submitted that the offences under Sections 316(2) and 3 I 8(3) of the BNS cannot dishonest intention on the co-exist, especially when there is no part of the petitioner, especially the Corporation themselves supplied the paddy for the purpose of 31 conversion into CMR ald there is no criminal breach of trust is made out. The petitioner or CAIPL has not made any request the Corporation to supply the paddy. The Corporation themselves entrusted the job work. Hence, the above said ingredients are not attracted.

8.12.

The respondent Corporation had issued proceedings under Revenue Recovery Act. Aggrieved by the same, some of the Rice Millers have approached this Court and filed W.P.No. 17985 of 2024 and batch and this Court allowed the said writ petitions on 2a -O8.2O24 and quashed the proceedings on the ground that the respondent authorities therein have issued the proceedings without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act. However, the respondent authorities therein are not precluded from initiating proceedings afresh, by strictly following the due procedure laid down under Revenue Recovery Act, as well as the principles Iaid down in the judgment mentioned in the said common order. Aggrieved by the same, the Government/ Corporation have liled Writ Appeals before the Hon'ble Division Bench and the Hon'ble Division Bench had not suspended the order passed by the learned Single Judge only directed the respondents/writ petitioners or their family members are not to alienate their properLies, till further orders and the said writ appeals are pending.

32

8.13.

The Corporation framed the scheme in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ancl framed guidelines. Pursuant to the said scheme only the parties have entered into the Agreement and the said Agreement is having statutory force and binding upon the parties. However, the respondent Corporation has filed the present compla.int in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Agreement, without invokrng the arbitration clause or without approaching the competent civil Court. The complaint has been filed by giving criminal colour for recovery of the alleged due amount, without conducting any enquiry and without determrning the amount due and payable. B.

14.

He furthcr submitted that the Corporation has not paid milling charges, storage charges and other charges, and in fact, a substantial amoLrnt is due by the Corporation to CAIPL. If the Corporation invoked the arbitration clause, the real facts will come to light.

8.15.

I{e further submitted that earlier, similar cases were registered for the offences under Sections 316(2) and 3f8(3] of the BNS only. With an intention to avoid following the due procedure as conternplated under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal procedure, 197 3 / 35(3) of rhc Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 lfor shorr, ,the BNSSJ, fited rhe present complaint by adding Section 316(5) of rhe BNS, though the ingredients of the sard Section are not 33 attracted against the petiUoner. He further submitted that in similar circumstalces, this Court in Crl.P.No.89S of 2025 while disposing of the case oo 25.01 .2024, has held that the offence under Section 316(5) of the BNS is not attracted and the punishment for the other offences levelled against the petitioners therein is below seven yezrrs, therefore, the Investigating Officer is directed to follow the due procedure as contemplated under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C./Section 35(3) of BNSS.

8.16.

He also submitted that respondent No. l, in his counter, has not stated that the competent authority had granted authorization to him to lile complaint. On the other hand, the Circle Inspector of Police fi.led a counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent No.2, wherein it is stated that, as per clause a(p) of the Agreement, the District Manager is authorized to act on behalf of the Corporation and the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 is maintainable. He also submitted that respondent No.2 lodged the complaint a-fter a lapse of inordinate delay, especially not mentioned any reasons for the delay and tJle same is fatal to the prosecution.

8.17.

He further submitted that respondent No.2, in the counter- affrdavit, relied upon the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.33O5 of 2024 dated O1.04.2024. In the above said order, this Court relied upon the judgments in Lalit Chaturvedi and others v. State of 34 Uttar Pradeshl, and Sadhupati Nageswara Flao v. State of Aadhra Pradesh2. The said principle is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case, on the ground that Sadhupati Nageswara Rao's case, the fair price shop dea_ler was convicted for the offence under Section 4O9 of IPC. The fair price shop dealer falls within the ambit of employee/agent, as he G entrusted with the distribution of commodities and he receives incentives from the Government. However, in the present case, the petitioner is not an agent or employee, and the respondent Corporation entrusted paddy for conversion into rice (CMR) and the nature of work is only job work. 8. 18 ln sLrpport of his contention, he relied upon the following judgmen t s l. Sujoy Ghosh v. The State of Jharkhand & Aar.3; Shri Kersi H Vachha and another v. State of A.p., Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabada; State of Madras (now A.P.f represented by District v. Jayalakshrni Rice MiIl Contractors C.s; 2 3 ' 2022 sCC Onlrne SC 579 ' 2ot2 8 scc 54t ' 2026 supreme (SC) 2gB ' 20I7 Supreme (Ap) 698 ' 1958 Supreme (Api 40

4 35 Sushil Sethl and another v. Pradesh and others6; State of Arunachal

5.

Sharad Kumar Sanghi v. Sangita RaneT; N. Gopinath and Ors. Pradesh and Ors.E; v. The State of Andhra Atluri Sitaramdoss and another v. The State, S.H.C. of Police, Gudivada Town Policee;

8.

Laxmi Nr. Sah v. The State of Biharlo;

9.

Bal Kishan Das v. P.C. Nayatrr'

10.

Inder Chaad Bagri v. Jagadish Prasad Bagri and anotherl2; 1 1. A. M. Mohan v. The State Represented by SHO and Aaotherr3;

12.

Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. State of Gujarat and anotherra;

13.

Delhi Race Club (19401 Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesfi anfl Q6.rs'

14.

S. N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. v. State of Karanataka & Anr 16. 6 7 ' lzozo; 3 scc z4o ' (2015) 12 scc 781 8 2022 SCC OnLine AP 1007 e (197s) l APU 119 'o 1983 Supreme (Pat) 182 " 2025 SCC Online SC U32 '2 2025 Supreme (Sc) l%8 'r 2024 Supreme (SC) 25s to 2019 3 Supreme 204 ts 2024 INSC 626

36 I 5. Mahmood Ali & Ors. v. State of U.p. & Ors. rz;

16.

Rajib Ranjan & Ors. v. R. Vijaykumarre:

17.

Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryanate;

18.

Kishan Singh lDf through L.Rs. v. Gurpal Singh & Ors.2o;

19.

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Anr. V. N.R. Vairamani ,lrd 6or.zr1 and 20. Anukul Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.22

9.

Mr. Vinod Kumar Despande, learned Senior Counsel in Crl.P.No.2818 oI 2026 9. 1. lrarned Senior Counsel, submitted ttrat respondent No-2 does not have locus standi to llle the complaint. As per the Clause No.8. 1.3 (though it was shown as 9.1.3) of the Agreement, the Commissioner, Civil Supplies Department, VC & MD of TSCSCL alone is competent to lodge the complalnt, and not respondent No.2_District Manager.

9.2.

He further submitted that even according to the allegations levelled in the complaint, the inspection was conducted in the petitioner's rice mill on O8.O8.2O25 and a report was submitted on '5 2025 Supreme (SC) 1l17 t7 2023 s Supreme 504 '8 2014 B Supreme lgs te (20241 3 SCC s71 e 2olo 6 Supreme 516 " 2oo4 (7) Suprerne 126 " 2025 Supreme (SC) 1732

37 22.09.2025. The present complaint was lodged on 23.02.2026, alter a lapse of more than five months from ttte date of the alleged report, without assigning any reasons for the said delay. Hence, the complaint filed by respondent No.2 is liable to be quashed on the ground of delay.

9.3.

He further submitted that as per the Agreement, the petitioner and employees of respondent Corporation are responsible and Clause 9 of the Agreement deals with joint custody. However, respondent No-2 in his counter alleged that ttre role of joint custody of the Corporation officials is only limited and the same is not permitted under law, especially Clause 9(1) of t.lle Agreement specifically stated that the paddy received by the second parly / ice miller from respective PPCs shall be under the joint custody ofthe Corporation as well as the miller. The Deputy Tahasildar, Civil Supplies, of the respective area, or any other official nominated by the Collector, Civil Supplies, shall act as the joint custodian. Respondent No.2 with an intention to save their own employees filed the present complaint against the petitioner. 9.4 . He further submitted that the petitioner hrm, namely Ram [.axman Paraboiled Rice Mill Limited, has approached this Court and filed W.P.No.252O0 of 2024, questioning the action of the respondents therein in not lifting the paddy allotted to the petitioner

38 lrrm for the Rabi 2022-23, in furtherance of the global e-tender dated 25.01.2024, on 'as is where is'basis, as being illegal. This Court, by order dated 71.O9.2024, disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents to lift the CMR paddy lying in the peilLioner's rice mill pertaining to the crop year Rabi 2022-23 within a period of four weeks from the date of disposal of the said writ petition. In spite of the specific direction issued by this Court, the Corporation or the respondents therein have not taken any steps to lift the paddy, and the competent authority has also not taken any action against the concerned officers. He further submitted that to constitute an oflence under Section 318(a) of the BNS, there must be dishonest intention from the inception. In the present case, there is no allegation against the petitioner of any such dishonest intention from the inception. Hence, the ingredients of the oflence under Section 318(a) of the BNS are not attracted.

9.5.

He further submitted that respondent No.2, in the complaint, alleged that the petitioner is liable to pay an amount of Rs.25,36,81,256l- equivalent to the value of the paddy supplied by the Corporation, without any proper determination. As per the terms a,d conditions of the Agreement, respondent No.2 ought to have invoked the arbitration clause by referring the matter to the Arbitrator and the Arbitral Tribunal is only competent to adjudicate and determine the disptrte between the parties. Without referring the 39 matter to the Arbitrator, respondent No.2 frled the present complaint only with an intention to harass the petitioner and to recover the a.lleged amount and the same is contra5/ to the terms and conditions of the Agreement and also law.

9.6.

He further submitted that the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of an agent or employee. Therefore, t.Ile ingredients of Section 316(5) of the BNS are not attracted. Respondent No.2, with an intention not to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and anothers, implicated the petitioner for the offence under Section 3f 6(5) of the BNS, though the same is not applicable. 9.7 . In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following judgments: l. Suresh Singh v. State of Bihatu; Kishan Singh (Deadf Through LRs. V. Gurpal Singh aud others2s;

3.

Dilwar singh v. State of Delhi26;

4.

Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma o"d others v. State of Bihar and another2T; (2014) I SCC 273 1989 Lawsuat(Pat) 222 (2010) 8 SCC 77s (2m7) rz scc 641 2 23 24 25 26

40

5.

S.K. Bhargava v. Collector, Chandigarh and others28; lO. Mr. K. Buchi Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.9S7 of 2026:,

10.

I . He submitted that he adopts the submissions made by Mr. R.N. Hemaldranath Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, and Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel. In addition to the same, he submitted that the offences levelled against the petitioner are with imprisonment of less than seven years. The Investigating Officer, without following the due procedure prescribed under the BNSS, is proceeding with the investigation. The respondent Corporation has not issued any notice and has not determined the alleged amount mentioned in the compla-rnt. In the absence of any such determination, the initiation of criminal proceedings is not permitted under law.

10.2.

He further submitted that the Government of India issued Memo No.28OglCS-l CCS Dated 24.tt.2025 extending the time for a period of 90 days for the delivery of FRK and for recovery of pending dues from the defaulter rice millers pertarning to KMS 2014-15 and KMS 2023-24. Even before the expiry of the said period, initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioner is contrary to its own proceedings. ]] tzooo; 4 scc 168 " (1998) 5 SCC 17o

4l

10.3.

He further submitted that in 2022, d.ue to heavy rains, the stocks lying in the petitioner's rice mill were totally damaged and the petitioner sustained a huge loss. The peLitioner submitted a request to the concerned authorities seeking compensation for the said loss. Based on the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 16.07.2022, an inspection was conducted by Giridhavar and a report was submitted on 2O-O7.2O22. Pursuant to the said report, the Tahasildar, uide proceedings, dated 20.O7.2022, addressed a letter to the RDO, Jayashankar Bhupalapally District, stating that due to heavy rains from O9.O7 .2022 to l7.O7 .2022 ald the resultant Godavari floods, food products and materials kept in the petitioner's rice mill were damaged and the loss was assessed at Rs.57 lakhs and the sajd report was forwarded to the RDO and the Government has not taken any steps to reimburse the said amount to the petitioner, on the other hand, respondent No.2 frled the present complaint alleging that the petitioner committed default and not delivered equivalent paddy supplied by the Corporation and he is liable to pay Rs.4,26,88,216 /-.

10.4.

He further submitted that the allegations levelled in the complaint are purely civil in nature. As per the terms and conditions mentioned in the Agreement, there is no clause imposing interest. Contrar5r to the terms and conditions, imposed l2o/o of interest and the same is not permissible under law.

42

11.

Mr. Somavarapu Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.Nos.4316 and 4624 of 2026: 1 1. l. He submitted that he adopts the submissions made by both the learned Senior Counsel. In addition to the same, he submitted that the District Manager does not have the competence to lodge the complaint. The Tahasildar does not have juri iction to conduct an investigation in the premises of the petitioner's rice mill. He further submitted that neither the Tahasildar nor respondent No.2 has followed the procedure contemplated under Section 105 of the E.C. Act, on the other hand, they conducted search. 1 I .2 . He further sr-rbmitted that the alleged offences pertain to the Kariff season 2022-23 . The presen t complaint was hled on 17 .03.2026 with an inordinate delay. The Corporation issued a show-cause notice on 15.12.2024. The pctitioner got issued notice on 11.O9.2024 through their counsel re(luesting the Corporation to furnish various documents mentioned therein for the purpose of issuing reply to the show-cause notice. However, neither respondent No.2 nor Corporation furnished the documents, on the other hand, Iiled the present complaint. The nature of the allegations levelled in the complaint is purely civil in nature and the same is liable to be quashed.

43

11.3.

In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra aud others2e. L2. Mr. I{. Keerthi Simha, leaneed couasel for the petitioner ia Crl.P.No.3O74 of 2o26 72.L. He submitted that he adopts the submissions made by both the leamed Senior Counsel. In addition to the same, he submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in t}le present crime. The petitioner retired from the post of Director of M/s.Sumanjali PBI Private Limited much prior to the alleged entrustment of work relating to paddy for the Rabi 2022-23 season. The petitioner is not a signatory to the alleged Agreement entered into between M/s.Sumanjali PBI Private Limited and the respondent Corporation. The petitioner submitted his resigrration to the Director on 23.07.2021 and his resignation was accepted by the Registrar of Companies and in Form MGT-7. He also submitted that the above said Company in their income Tax annual returns, it is specifically mentioned that the petitioner's directorship was ceased- on 23.07.2021. Hence, the petitioner is no way concerned for the alleged entrustment of paddy to M/s.Sumanjali PBI Private Limited or delivery of CMR equivalent to the paddy to the Government. By virtue n AIR 2021 Supreme Court 1918

44 of cessaLion of directorship, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is clear abuse of the process of law. 12.2 . He further submitted that even according to the counter- affidavit frled of respondent No.1, the alleged Agreement was executed in the year 2O22, w}:ereas the stamp was purchased much subsequent to the alleged Agreement i.e., on 28.03.2025. Therefore, the alleged Agreement is not a genuine one.

13.

Mr. C. Hari Preeth, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.3145 of 2026

13.1.

He submitted that he adopts the submissions made by both the learned Senior Counsel. In addition to the same, he submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that petitioners submitted their resignations as Directors of M/s.sumanjali pBI Private Limited on O1.04.2018 and the same was accepted by the Board of Directors of the Company as well as Registrar of Companies. I3.2- He further submitted that the alleged Agreement was entered into by the District Manager with M/s.Sumanjali pBI private Limited rn the 2022, which is much subsequent to the said resignation of the petrtioners as Directors. The petitioners were not parties to the said Agreem en t allegations and rhey are no way concerned with the alleged of entrustment of paddy to M/s_Suman;ali pBI private

45 Limited and not delivered the CMR to Corporation/Government. Respondent No.2 has implicated the petitioners solely on the ground that earlier they were Directors of the M/s. Sumanjali PBI Private Limited.

13.3.

He further submitted that even according to the documents filed along with the counter-aflidavit filed by respondent No. 1, particularly, the seizure/recovery panchan.una, wherein it reveaJs that the petitioners have submitted their resigrations, as Directors of the Company, to the Registry of Companies on O1.04.2018. Hence, the continuatjon of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law.

14.

Mr. K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.425O of 2026

14.1.

He submitted that he adopts the submissions made by both the learned Senior Counsel. In addition to the same, he submitted that respondent No.2 is not having competent authority to lodge t]le compliant. Even according to the allegations levelled in the cornplaint, the oflicers of the Corporation conducted inspection in the rice mill of the petitioner on 26.02.2026 behind his back and lodged the present complaint on 21.03.2026 after a lapse of more than 22 days without assigning €rny reasons lor the said delay.

46

14.2.

He further submitted that the copy of the Agreement hled by respondent No.2 along with counter is incomplete and respondent No.2 has not filled the particulars of the parties in the Agreement and there are no signatures of both the parties. The Corporation supplied less quantitSz of paddy and substandard paddy to the petitioner rice mil1. However, as per the Agreement, the petitioner rice mill has to supply 670/o of raw rice and 680/o of boi_led rice. He also submitted that Clause 12 of the Agreement deals with joint custody and as per the said clause, the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies) of the respective area or any other Officer nominated by the Collector (Civil Supplies), shall be the joint custodial. Hence, the employees of the Corporation are also liable. On the other hand, to safeguard their own officials, respondent No 2 lodged the complaint against the petitioner.

14.3.

He further submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the Agreemcnt, the Government has to pay milling charges, storage charges, maintenance charges, gunny bag charges, and various other amounts and the respondents are due huge amounts to the petitioner. 14.4- He further submitted that in earlier Agreements, there is no penalty clause and interest clause. However, the said two clauses were included in the present Agreements and all the clauses of the Agreernent are one sidecl and in favour of the Corporation only

47

14.5.

He further submitted that the Officers of the Corporation have not conducted proper inspection. The alleged inspection was conducted in a hurried manner behind back of the petitioner and it was completed within three days and submitted report. Based on the alleged report, respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint and the same is not permitted under law and the same is liable to be quashed.

15.

Mr. K. Veaumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.Nos.466O and 47al oI 2o26 I5. 1. He submitted that he adopts the submissions made by both the learned Senior Counsel. In addition to the same, he submitted that Government of Telangana, Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS.I.CCS) Departrnent, had issued Memo No.28O9lCS.I.CCS/2025, dated 24.11.2025, wherein it is decided to recover the pending CMR dues from the default rice millers of the previous years pertaining to KMS 2Ol4-15 to KMS 2023-24, excluding Rabi 2022'23 season auction paddy, and later, the Government of Telangana, Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS.I.CCS) Department, had issued another Memo No.677/CS.I.CCS/2O26, dated 25.O3 -2026, extending the time for supply of CMR for a further period of 3 months- Even before the expiry of the said period, respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint with an intention to recover the amount and the same is not permissible under law.

48

15.2.

He further sr.rbmitted that tbe allotted s!oc! qf pa{dy pertaining to 2022-23 Rabi season stocks is very much available in the rice mill premises. The petitioner has submitted representations to the Corporation and other authorities requesting them to permit the petitioner to deliver the stocks of CMR by way of FRK sanna bi5ryam. When the authorities tailed to consider the said representations, the petitioner had approached this Court and filed W.P.No.SlOS of 2026 and this Court disposed the same on 17 -03.2026 directing the respondent No.2 therein to consider the representation of the petitioner for grant of time to deliver the quantit5r of rice within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt ofa copy of the order and pass appropriate orders and communicate the decision to the petitioner. TiIl such I rme, respondent authorities are directed not to take any coercrve stcps against the petitioner. When this Court issued a specific drrection not to take any coercive steps, respondent No,2 fited the present complaint and t}re same is not permitted under Iaw.

15.3.

He further submitted that the Corporation, without taking proper care, supplied sub-standard paddy, which was kept in the premises of the rice miu. Respondent No.2-corporation conducted a public auction through e-tender, however, the successful bidder had not lifted the stock ancl the said paddy is not suitable for the CMR, Respondent No,2 Corporation has not taken any action against the 49 said bidder. He further submitted that the petitioner has executed a Bank Guarantee and provided sureties and that in the event of failure to deliver the CMR equivalent to the paddy supplied by the Corporation, the Corporation is entitled to take necessary steps in accordance with the Agreement by invoking the Arbitration clause or by approaching a civil Court for recovery of the alleged amount due and payable, on ttre other hand, filed the present complaint and the same is not maintainable under law, especially there is no aspect of criminality, as the allegations made in the complaint are purely civil in nature.

15.4.

He further submitted that as per Clause 9.1.2(21 of the terms and conditions of the Agreement, the Corporation is entitled to recover the equivalent quandty of rice from the defaulter. As per clause 9. 1.2(3) of the terms and conditions of the Agreement, the Commissioner, Civil Supplies Department, shall initiate criminal action against the defaulting second part5r and all other concerned, apart from disqualiffing and debarring the second party from participating in future CMR operations. The Corporation, without initiating recovery for the alleged amount in accordance with law, has filed the present complaint solely based on Clause No.9.1.2 (3) of the Agreement, especially when the said clause provides that the Commissioner, Civil Supplies Department/Vc & MD, shall initiate the criminal action against the defaulting part5r and all other

50 concerned. Whereas respondent No.2/District Manager has filed the present complaint and not the Commissioner/Vice Chairman and Managing Director, respondent No.2 does not have authority/competency to file the complajnt.

15.5.

He submitted that in Crl.P.No.478 I of 2026, the petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offences and the police have implicated him as an accused solely based upon the confession statement given by accused Nos.I and 2, when they were in police custody, stating that the petitioner acted as a mediator during the purchase of rice mill by accused Nos.l and 2 on 16. 1 1.2023. He further submitted that the petitioner is not a signatory to the alleged Agreement enterecl into between respondent No.2 and accused No.l. There is no nexus or link to connect the petitioner with alleged crime. Hence, conttnuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.

15.6.

In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments / orde rs; Ch.Anjaneyulu v. The State of Telangana and another (Criminal petition No.10576 of 2Ol7l; 1 2 Delhi Race CIub Limited and others (supra 1Sfi and.

51

3.

Mitesh Kumar J, Sha v. The State of Karnataka and others lCriminal Appeal No.1285 of 20211;

16.

Mr. K. Naresh, learned coursel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.3587 of 2026:

16.1.

He submitted that he adopts the submissions made by both the leamed Senior Counsel. In addition to the same, he submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner resigned as a Director of M/s.Sumanjali Parboiled Private Limited on 14.02.2017 and the same was accepted by the Registrar of Companies. The said Company liled its annual returns from 01.O4.2018 to 31.03.2019, wherein it is specifically mentioned that the petitioner does not hold any equity shares.

16.2.

He further submitted ttrat in the place of the petitioner, another Director, namely Kandhukuri Padma, was appointed and his shares were transferred in her favour. In the annual returns of the Company for the period from Ol .O4.2O22 to 31.03.2023 also the petitioner's name does not appear in the.list of the Directors. Thus, the petitioner is neither a Director nor a share holder and has no role in the said Company, in terms of Section 168(2) of the Companies Act. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.

52

17.

Mr. L. Bhargava Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner in CrI.P.No.98 t of 2026:

17.1.

He submitted that he adopts the submissions made by both the learned Senior Counsel. In addition to the same, he submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence ald has been faisely implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are purely civil in nature arising out of a contract. Hence, the ingredients of Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(a) of the BNS and Section 7 of the E.C. Act are not attracted. He further submitted that the petitioner does not come within the ambit of an .agent, or tmployee' as defined under Section 2(S) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2Ol7 (for short CGST ActJ and therefore, the ingredients of Section 316(5) of the BNS are not attracted against the petitioner. The Corporation entrusted the paddy to the petitioner,s rice mill for conversion into CMR rice. The nature of the work entrusted to the petrtioner is only Job work,as defined under Section 2168) ot the CGST Act, and the said dehnition is squarely applies to the present case. The petitioner does not fall within the ambit of either an agent or an employee. 17 -2. He further submitted that the allegations revelled in the complaint arise purely out of a commercial contract. As per the provisions of Section 222 of the Indian Contract Act, lg12, the entruslment of the paddy to the petitjoner for conversion into CMR

53 rice is purely contractual in nature and specific terms ald conditions are enumerated therein. Therefore, the initiation of the criminal proceedings is not permissible under law.

17.3.

He also submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement, the petitioner shall not pledge tJ:e stock of the Corporation with any Bank or financial institution to secure any loan or financial assistance. Even according to the terms and conditions of the contract, the paddy was entrusted to tJre petitioner solely for the purpose of milling and for no other purpose. Hence, the petitioner does not come within the ambit of an 'agent'. L7. 4. He further submitted that in respect of t}re Agreement pertaining to 2025-26 Rabi season, custom milling paddy KMS, the second party has been specifically described as an 'agent'. The said word was not incorporated in the earlier contract or in the present case so as to attract the ingredients of Section 316(5) of the BNS.

17.5.

He further submitted that respondent No.2 Corporation has now prepared an Agreement in respect of KMS 2025-26 between Telangana State Civil Supplies CorporaLion Limited and rice miller, wherein the ltrst party described as the Corporation and the second party i.e., the rice miller, is described as an 'agent'.

54

17.6.

He further submitted in similar circumstances, this Court disposed of the Criminal Petition No. r2O37 of 2024 on 03.tO.2O24, Criminal petition No.12650 of 2025 on 25.09.2025, wherein it was held that Section 316(5) of the BNS is not attracted and the Investigating Oflicer was directed to follow the due procedure as contemplated under Section 4l-A of Cr.P,C./Section 35(3) of the BNSS. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law. 17 .7 . He further submitted that the order dated O1.O4.2O24 in Criminal Petition No.33O5 of 2024 is not applicable to the facts and circumstalces of the present case, especially as the learned Judge, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in I{.Raghavender v. State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI3o, dismissed the Criminal petition without properly considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalit Chaturvedi and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh3r, as well as the terms and conditions of the Agreement.

17.8.

In support of his contentions, he relied rrpon the following judgments/ orders;

1.

Uco Bank v. Hern Chandra Sarkar32; 2- Lakshminarayan Ram Gopal and Son Ltd. v. The Gorvernrnent of Hyderabad sa; lo {zozr1t8 scc 70 " 2022 SCC Online SC 579 " 1e90(3) SCC 389

55

3.

Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab3a;

4.

Baldeo Narain Singh and others v. State of Bihar3s;

5.

Va"dana Jain and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh ot'd others36;

6.

P.Krishna Bhatta and others v. Muadila Ganapathi Bhatta and others3T; la. Mr. Banda Prasada Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.522O of 2()26

18.1.

He submitted that he adopts the submissions made by both the learned Senior Counsel. In addition to the same, he submitted that the respondent Corporation issued a notice on 31.O1.2025 and, within a short span, issued a show-cause notice dated O3.O2.2O25. The petitioner supplied 55O MTs of CMR to the respondent Corporation. In spite of the same, respondent No.2 filed the present complaint on 14.03.2025. He further submitted that the noUce was served on the family members of the petitioner, as the petitioner was hospital2ed. Though the petitioner is ready to supply shortfall of CMR by way of installments over a period of two to three years, respondent No.2, without considering the same, filed the present complaint. B AIn t9s+ sc :6+ I 2023 pHHc o35zg8 s nln tgsg pat +2 r 2020 It'tsc tg2 37 AIR 1955 Mad 548

56

19.

Submissions of the learned Advocate General: 19.1. l,earned Advocate General submitted that the petitioners have entered into a contract with the Corporation through a custom milling Agreement for KMS 2022-23 Kariff and Rabi seasons. The terms and conditions mentioned in the said Agreement are binding on the parties. The entire Agreement has to be read as a whole, and the petitioners are not enLitled to rely upon any single clause in isolation. He further submitted that as per clause 3(a) of the Agreement, the petitioners agreed to custom mill the paddy of the Corporation and deliver CMR to the Governrnent/Corporation in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement and the instructions issued by the Government/F.C.l. frorn time to time. The Government of Telangana issued Memo No.7O4/CS.I-CCS/2016 dated 16. 1O.2O17, wherein it is stated that the District Manager, CSC, shall take action to file a criminal case at the Station House Officers having juri iction, where the defaulting rice mill is situated, through the Assistant Manager (Tech.) CSC and the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahasildar concerned, as complainant Nos.l and 2. According to the said Memo, the District Manager of the Corporation is entitled to lodge a complaint against the defaulting rice millers. Hence, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the peritioners that the Distnct Manager of the Corporation does not have the authorit5z or competency to lodge the complaint against them is 57 not true and correct. The above said memo issued by the Government is stiil in force and the same is binding upon the petitioners.

19.2.

He further submitted that as per sub-clause (b) of clause 3 of the Agreement, the petitioners had agreed to deliver 1O0% CMR to the Corporation and have also agreed not to custom mill the paddy to any other person or agency or in any other manner diverts its milling capacity for any other purposes. The pelitioners further agreed to deliver CMR of the same varief5r of the paddy supplied to them, in accordance with the Fair Average Quality (FAQ) specifications issued by the Government of India/Telangana.

19.3.

He further submitted that there is no dispute about entrustment of paddy by the Government/Corporation to the petitioners / Rice Mills for CMR. As per the clause 5(7) of the Agreement, once the paddy has been accepted by the miller through the truck chit, the paddy so received by the miller shall be considered to be correct in terms of the quality and quantity, and no dispute shall be entertained after such acceptance with regard to the quality and quantity of the paddy received by the miller.

19.4.

The petitioner rice millers agreed under clause 5(8) of the Agreement to store the paddy received by them in their registered mill premises or any other place approved by the District Collector (CS), in 58 case of receipts exceeded the storage capacity of the mill, and it shall remain in the custody of the miller and the miller witl be responsible for any shortage or damage to paddy/rice stocks.

19.5.

He further subrnitted that as per clause D$l of the Agreement, the petitioners sha-ll be entitled to milling charges, at the rates prescribed by the Government of India in the provisional cost sheet for KMS 2022-23 for Telangana State, only after completion of entire milling operaLions on satisfactory delivery of rice to F.C.l / Corporation and reconciliation of gunny accounts, paddy accounts, CMR delivery accounts and also after affecting any recoveries to be made arising after reconciliation. The petitioners have not delivered CMR to the FCI/Corporation as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement. Hence, the contention of the petitioners that the Government/Corporation have not paid the milling and other charges to the petitioners is not tenable. 19.6- He further submitted that clause l3( ) of the Agreement enumerates that in the event of any dispute wi th regards to this Agreement, the same shall be referred to an arbitrator. The said clausc does not bar inidation of criminal proceedings merely on the ground of the non-invocation of arbitration clause.

19.

7 He further submitted that the Government of Telangana issued G.O.Ms.No,23 dated lg.tO.2022 introducing the policy for 59 procurement of paddy under MSP operations and delivery of custom milled rice for KMS 2022-23 - In the said G.O., it is specifically stated that in order to ensure Minimum Support Price (MSP) to the farmers for their paddy produce and availability of good quality of grains i.e., rice, to the weaker sections at the affordable price for over all food security of the State.

19.8.

He further submitted that in Crl.P.No.28O9 of 2026, the Government/Corporation allotted a total quantity of 23,4O5.28O MTs of paddy during Rabi 2022-23 to the petitioner's rice mill. The petitioner's rice mill delivered CMR only 3,852.974 MTs. The balance paddy to be available in the rice mill after milling was 19,552.306 MTs. Out of the said paddy, the successful bidder lifted 558I.434 MTs as per the global e-tender for paddy dated 25.07.2024. After Iifting the paddy by tJle bidder, the balance paddy to be available in the petitioner's rice mill is 13,884.305 MTs. During the course of physical verification, the Corporation found a shortage of 13,967.186 MTs of paddy, worth Rs.34,IO,64,715l-. Consequenfly, the Corporation issued a notice dated 3 I . I O.2O25 directing the petitioner's rice mill to clear the dues amounting to Rs.43,99,73,483.O0, after calculating penalty and interest, within seven days of receipt ofthe notice.

60 i9. 9. He further submitted that the petitioners with a dishonest intention from the inception diverted / misappropriated the paddy into their personal gains and have not delivered equivalent CMR to the Government/ Corporation. There are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners that the Corporation entrusted the paddy as per the Agreement for conversion into CMR. However, the petitioners have not delivered CMR to the Government/Corporation/FCl and the equivalent paddy is not available in the petitioners, rice mill. The petilioners havc misappropriated/diverted a huge quantity of paddy, due to which, the Government has sustained huge loss. Hence, the allegations made in the complaint attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 316(2), 316(5) and 318(3) of the BNS and Sectrons 7 of t he Essential Commodities Act, l9S5 and the said offences are cognizable offences and the investigation is very much required. Hencc, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at threshold. l9.IO. He further submitted that there are specific allegaLions levelled agarnst the petitioner that the Government/Corporation entrusted thc paddy as per the Agreement for conversion into CMR. Howeve r, has nol the peritioner with dishonest intention from the inception delivered CMR to the Government and the paddy is not availab,: in t'e ,remises of the petitioner,s rice mill. The petitioner has misapproprizrted a huge quantity of paddy, due to which, the 6t Government has sustained heavy loss. Hence, the allegations made in the complaint attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 316(2),316(5) and 318(3) of the BNS and Sections 7 of the E.C. Act and the said offences are cognizable offences and the investigation is very much required. Hence, the petitioner is not entifled to seek quashing of the proceedings at threshold.

19.11.

In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:

1.

Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal and others3s;

2.

Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and others3e;

3.

Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Mahashtra and others{;

4.

Sadhupati lYageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradeshal;

5.

State of Punjab v. Pritam Chand aud othersa2l

6.

Aashul Jotwani v. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Olficer aad Othersa3; R ( rggg) 8 scc 686 r lrsssy 3 scc 259 0 1zozr1 19 scc 401 o' (2012) 8 scc547 ot zot3 scc onLine P &H 26723 or 2026 scc onLine chh 1948

62 Nomula Pandurangam v. The State of Telangana aud another (Crl.P.No.330S of 2ot241;

8.

Kabal Singh v. State of Punjab++;

9.

M/s. Jai Mata Di Rice MiIl and another v. The State of Bihar and othersas; i0- Md. Mustafa Ansari v. The State of Bihar aad others (Crl.Appeal No.1l37 oI 2Ot7l;

11.

Bihar State Electricit5r Board, pataa and others v. M/s. Green Rubber Industries and others€;

12.

Ratanlal v. Prahlad Jat and othersa?; and I 3. Pawan Kurnar v. State of Har5rana+a.

20.

Submissions of the learued Public prosecutor :

20.

L Learncd f\blic Prosecutor submitted that there is no dispute in respect to the cntrustment of paddy to the petitioner for milling and the petitioner has not delivered the equivalent quantity of CMR to the Corporation or the Government, thereby misappropriating a huge quantity of the paddy. 'lhe petitioner has neither delivered CMR nor returncd the equivalent quantity of the paddy, nor paid the amount due, in spite o[ the notices issued by tJre Corporation. * 1996 SCC Onlrne P&H 531 " 2015 SCC Onlrne pat 84g6 -" (1990) I SCC 7lt '' (2017) 9 SCC 340 '8 2oo5 SCC onLrne p&H t I r s

63 2O.

2.

He submitted that in the State of Telangana, there are more than 3,600 rice mills and the Corporation has supplied paddy for CMR to several rice mills. Except the petitioners rice mills, all other rice millers have duly supplied CMR to the Corporation/FCl. The scheme introduced by the Government is a welfare scheme to the public in general. The petitioners misappropriated the paddy supplied by the Corporation for their own purposes and the sale proceeds were allegedly invested in various real estate fields, the hlm industries and other purposes, with an intention to avoid the due amounts and approached this Court and frled the Present criminal petitions. The petitioners misappropriated huge quantity worth of Rs.3,900 crores of paddy supplied by the Government/Corporation.

20.3.

He further submitted that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Corporation/Government ought to have invoked the arbitration clause or approached the competent civil Court, instead of initiating criminal proceedings by lodging the complaints, is not tenable r:nder law on the ground that the petitioners have misappropriated the paddy supplied by the Corporation to them for conversion into CMR and the said allegations constitutes the offences under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(3), 318(4) and 314 of the BNS and Section 7 of the E.C. Act.

64 20.4 . He further submitted that in Crl.P.N o.2BO9 of 2026, respondent No.2- de facto complainant lodged a complaint on 23.O2.2026. Based on the same, Crime No.32 of 2026 was registered on 23.02.2026 for the offences under Sections 316(2), 316(5) and 3lg(3) of the BNS and Section 7 of the E.C. Act. Soon after the registration of the crime, the petitioner approached this Court within a span of two days, with an intention to evade the investigation. Hence, ttre petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the crime at the threshold, as the matter requires investigation - 2O.

5.

In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments

1.

Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (sataniyaf and othersae;

2.

Onkar Nath Mishra and others v. State lNCf of Delhif and anotherso;

3.

State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan LaI and otherssr;

4.

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and a:rothers2. 5. Subash Sharma v. State of Haryanq. and another$;

6.

B. Narsa Goud v. State of Tel.''gana (Crl.p.No.272g of 20241 ae 2025 Lrvelaw (SC) IOSo ] tzoos; 2 SCC s6l " 1992 SUpp ( t) sCC 135 i' (20t21 to sCC 103 -' 201J: pHHC:05965c

65

7.

T.Narsimhulu v. The State of Tel.ngatra (Crl.P.No. 1234 of 2o241

8.

N. Raghavender v. State of Andhra Pradesh, CBIg;

9.

K. Bharthi Devi and another v. State of Telangana and anotherss;

10.

Indian Oil Corpn. V. NEFC India Ltd. and otherss;

11.

Suudari Nageshwer Rao v. The State of Telangana and another lCrl.P.No.146L of 2o2211'

12.

Pawan Kumar v. State of HaryanasT;

13.

Nomula Pandurangam v. The State of Telangana and another(Crl.P.no.3305 of 2ol241; atil

14.

Sadhupathi Nageswara Rao v. State of Aadhra Pradeshss REPLY SUBMISSIONS :

21.

Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshpaade, lcarned Senior Counsel ia Crl.P.No.281a of 2()26

21.1.

Lnarned Senior Counsel submitted that during the year 2022- 23, due to a natural calamity, the paddy supplied by the Government was damaged and the Government itself conducted an e-tender, pursuant to which, the auction purchaser/successful bidder lifted the stocks. Hence, the question of misappropriation of the alleged paddy by the petitioner does not arise. The judgments relied upon by ' lzozty 18 scc 70 s5 (2024) 10 scc i84 $ (2006) 6 scc 7i6 t' 2oos scc onLine P&H 1115 s (zor2) 8 scc 547

66 the learned Advocate General as well as learned Public prosecutor are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case.

21.2.

He further submitted that there is a clause of Joint custody,in the Agreement. However, the respondent Corporationn has not initiated the proceedings against their own employees and lodged the complaint oniy against the rice mills in order to save their own employees. In the said Agreement, there is no defrnition of Joint custody'. There is no allegation of criminalit5r and the allegations levelled in the complaint do not constitute any offence. The inspection/verihcation was conducted on 08.O8.2O25, whereas the complaint was lodgecl on 23.02.2C26 without assigning any reason for the delay.

22.

Mr. R.N. Hemandranath Reddy, learued Senior Counsel in Crl.P.No.2809 of 2o26 22.1 . I*arned Senior Counsel submitted that the terms and conditions of the Agreement clearly envisage that the commissioner, Civil Supplies of MD, TSCSCL or Collector/Additional Collector/Distnct Manager is competent authority to initiate appropriate proceedings against the millers. However, tJ'e District Manager/ respondenr No.2 has lodged the complaint without any authority or competcncy, especiary in the absence og any authorization on behalf of the Corporation. The peUtioner is only a Director, responclent No.2 has not lodged the complaint against the 67 company/rice mill. He further submitted that even as per G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 18. 1O.2022, the Vice Chairman and Man'gng Director, TSCLCL, or the Collector are competent authorities to initiate action or lodge the complaints. When a particular procedure is prescribed under the Agreement and particularly under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, the Corporation ought to have followed the procedure contemplated under the Act and not resorted to any other means or procedures. The Memo dated l6.LO.2Ol7 relied upon by the learned Advocate General does not have any statutory force and the same is not applicable to the present case.

22.2.

He further submitted that the respondent Corporation initiated the proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act in respect of the very same allegations aod froze the bank accounts and ordered the closure of rice mills, which was set aside by this Court in W.P.No. 17985 of 2024 and batch, by order dated 28.08.2024, granting liberty to the respondents therein to initiate proceedings afresh by strictly following the procedure laid down under the Revenue Recovery Act. However, the respondent Government/Corporation has neither determined actual loss through due legal process of law nor quantified the alleged misappropriated paddy, and instead initiated criminal proceedings.

70 structurally establishes a principle-to-principle commercial job work arrangement. The relationship between the State and the petitioner is exclusively governed by a formal written contract and the determination of the petitioner's legal capacity is purely a question of law and not a question of fact. Even according to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, the nature of the work entnrsted to the petitioner is only a job work and, therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 316(5) of the BNS are not attracted.

25.2.

He further submitted that District Manager was a part5r to the earlier Agreements excluding the present case. In the earlier Agreements, there was no mention of agent. However, for the year 2025-26 Agreements, the second party has been described as an 'agent' only with an intention to attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 316(5) of the BNS/Section 409 of tPC. In view of the u' 12otl18 scc 273

7t

25.3.

In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments: Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No.174 of 2Ol3l; Sundari Nageshwer Rao v. The State of Telangana and another (Crl.P.no.146l of 2o221

ANALYSIS

26.

Having considered the rival submissions made by t}e respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it revea-ls that the Telangana Government has announced its Paddy Procurement Policy in the year 2015 and as per the said Policy and the Government Orders issued by the State Government, Rice Millers have to purchase paddy from the farmers at a MSP predetermined by the State Government and has to deliver 75%o of tJte rice milled as levy to the Food Corporation of India, and the State Civil Supplies Corporation at a predetermined price. The rice millers were entitled to sell and move the remaining 25'/o levy free rice wittrin and outside the State and also export the rice as per the then prevailing orders of the State Government from time to time- It was called kvy System which was abolished by the Central Government in 2015 and was duly fotlowed by the State Governments. The newly formed State of Telangana traded the levy system for the custom milling system in order to provide more support to the farmers. The 1 2

72 FCI was replaced by the Corporation-Telangana State Ciwil Supplies Corporation Limited. Under the said custom milling system, the State directly purchases paddy from the farmers through different procurement centers at Village or Mandal levels and distributes the paddy to the rice millers for custom milling. The rice millers mill the paddy and supply to the State and receive predetermined custom milling charges. During Rabi 2022-23 marketing season under the paddy procurement poliry, the Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited acted as the nodal agency for the State Government, procured massive quantities of paddy from the farmers at MSP and subsequently entrusted the said paddy to the various rice mills, including the petiUoners'rice mills, for the purpose of CMR. In the said process, the Corporation a,d the petitioner/rice mill entered into an Agreement. As per the terms and conditions of the Agreement, the miller is required to convert the paddy into raw rice and boiled rice at the out-turn ratio as specified by the corporation, confirming to the FAQ standards prescribed from time to time, including fortified rice. The miller is obligated to deliver raw rice at 67"k and boiled rice at 68%o to the Corporation/Government/FCl equivalent to paddy supplied by the Corporation. In the event of default in delivering the cMR, the corporation is entitled to recover the cost of shortfall in equivalent CMR for the defaulted paddy @ 125%o of the rates fixed by the Government of India, along with 73 interest @ L2% p.a. on the actual paJrment amount, as well as any other expenditure incurred by the Corporation. In addition to the same, the Corporation is entitled to initiate criminal action against the defaulting party, disqualify and debar the miller from participating in future CMR operations and also entitled to recover the losses or damages from the miller as well as from the sureties, jointly and severally, in accordance with law.

27.

A perusal of the complaint in Crl.P.No.2809 of 2025 reveals that there are specifrc allegations that the Corporation supplied 23045.280 MTs of paddy for the Rabi 2022-2023 season under the Agreement to the petitioner rice mill. As per the terms and conditions of the Agreement, tJre petitioner was required to deliver 15905.741 MTs of CMR. However, the petitioner's rice mill delivered CMR boiled rice @ ratio of 680/o to the FCI i.e., 1950.241 MTs, CMR raw rice @ 67Yo to tJre Corporation i.e., 659.932 MTs and 86.567 MTs of CMR delivered to the Philippines. The total CMR raw and boiled rice delivered to FCI/CSC is 261O. 172 MTs and the paddy utilized for delivery of raw and boiled rice is 3852.974 MTs. The balance quantitlr of paddy that ought to have been available in the petitioner's rice mill after milling is 19552.3O6 MTs and that the paddy lifted by the bidder is 5581.434 MTs pursuant to the e-tender process dated 25.O1.2024 and the balance paddy to be available in the petitioner's rice mill is 13884.305 MTs. The Vigilance Wing of the Corporation

74 conducted an inspection of the petitioner's rice mill premises on 16.1O.2025 and upon physical verification, it is revealed that shortage of paddy is 13967.186 MTs and calcuiated the amount for cost of shortage of paddy comes to Rs.34,10,64,715/- and penalty @ 25k on costs and interest 12%o p.a., the total amount to be recovered from the petitioner was computed at Rs.45,36,16,0711-.

28.

The complarnt further reveals that the Corporation issued several notices to the petitioner rice mill to clear the outstanding dues and the last notice dated 3I.1O.2O25 was issued directing the petitioner to clear the dues within one week. However, the petitioner failed to comply with the same. The petitioner rice mill with a dishonest intention diverted and misappropriated the huge quantity of the paddy entmsted by the Corporation under the Agreement for CMR

29.

The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Corporat.ion, without proper verification of the records, inspection or determination of the actual shortfall of paddy through due proce ss of law, has unilaterally determined and claimed a huge amount and thc allegations levelled in the complaints against the petilioners are purely civil in nafure and that the Corporation ought to have approached the competent civil Court for recovery of the alleged amounts or ought to have invoked the arbitration clause,

75 which is available under the Agreement, on the other hand, respondent No.2 has lodged complaints by gnring a criminal colour and the same is not permitted under law- According to the respondents, the Corporation entrusted the paddy to the petitioners for CMR. However, the petitioners, with dishonest intention, diverted the paddy for their personal gain and failed to deliver the equivalent CMR as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement and the existence of an arbitration clause or not approaching the civil Court does not bar or nullify criminal prosecution, and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings merely on the ground of non-invocation of the arbitration clause.

30.

It is relevant to extract the clause l3(a) of the Agreement, which read as under: 'That both the parties have agreed that in the event of any dispute with regard to t]:is Agreement, the same sha-ll be referred to an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator shall be appointed by Commissioner, Civil Suppties, Government of Telangana/VC & Managing Director, TSCSCL."

31.

A pemsaf of above said Clause, it reveals that in the event of any dispute with regard to the Ageement, either of the parties is entitled to invoke the said clause. Even according to the petitioners, certain amounts towards milling charges, gunny bag charges, storage charges, and other dues remain unpaid by the 76 Corporation / Government, and they have also raised contentions with regard to the quality and quantitSz of paddy supplied by the Corporation. Even according to the petitioners, they have not invoked the said clause.

32.

In Kabal Singh (supra 441, Prita-rn Chand (supra 4), Subash Sharma (supra 53), Sadhupati Nageswara Rao (supra 5g), M/s Jai Mata Di Rice Mill (supra 4Q, NEPIC India Ltd. lsupro 56), pawan Kumar (supra 51, Gian Singh (supra S2l and N. Raghavender (supra 541, the Court held that the mere existence of a civil dispute, contractual relationship, or availabilit5r or invocation of civil remedies such as arbitration, recovery proceedings, settlement, or repayment does not by itsclf bar or justify quashing of criminal prosecution, since civil and cr rminal liabilities may coexist, and where the allegations disclose the essential ingredients of a criminal offence, the proceedings must ordinarily be permitted to continue; however, by way of a limited exception, the High Court may, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.p.C., quash proceedings even in non-compoundable offences where the dispute is predominantly civil in nature and has been amicably settled and the possibility of conviction is remote, though such power must be exercised with great caution and is not applicable to serious offences or those affecting society at large.

77

33.

It is relevant to mention that in Priti Saraf and others v. State INCT of Delhif a:rd others66, the Honble Supreme Court reaffirmed that the existence of an arbitration clause or the initiation of arbitral proceedings does not bar or nulli$r criminal prosecution if the allegations disclose the commission of an offence. Referring to Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agalwal and Ors6?, the Court held that arbitration is a civil remedy for contractual breaches and cannot substitute or override the criminal process where the acts complained of constitute offences under law.. An arbitrator has no juri iction to try criminal charges, even if they arise out of the same transaction. The Court emphasized that investigation and criminal proceedings should not be pre-empted or quashed merely because an arbitration mechanism exists, except in rare cases where the complaint is patently frivolous or malicious. It further observed that the High Court had erred in failing to consider the charge-sheet on record before concluding that no pima facie offence was made out, noting that such issues can only be properly assessed during trial.

34.

In the case on hand, there are specific allegations levelled in the complaint that the Corporation entrusted paddy for the specific purpose of CMR and as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement, the petitioners/rice mills were required to deliver CMR * zoztlzl ALT (crl.) 18 (sc) 6' 11999; 8 scc 686

78 equiva-lent to the paddy supplied by the Corporatioq. However, they failed to deliver the same, and the paddy is also not available with them and the same was misused and misappropriated for their personal gain. These allegations prima /aae disclose a cogrrizable offence. Hence, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.2 initiated criminal proceedings, without approaching the competent civil Court or without invoking arbitraUon clause as available under the Agreement filed criminal complaints, is not tenable under law-

35.

In respect of other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent Corporation initiated revenue recovery procecdings against some of the rice mills and aggrieved by the same, they approached this Court and filed W.p.No. 179g5 of 2024 and batch, and this Court, by order dated 28.08.2O24, allowed the said wnt petitions and aggrieved thereby, the Corporation / Government has filed Writ Appea_ls, which are pending before the Hon'ble Division Bench, therefore, the continuation of the proceedings is a clear abuse of the process of law. Whereas, the case of the respondents is that the issues involved in the Writ Appeals and in the present compraints are different and distinct, and that the pendency of rhe Writ Appeals is not a bar to prosecuting the petitioners under criminal Iaw.

79

36.

It is necessary to extract the operative portion of the order passed in W.P.No.17985 of 2024 and batch:

"

27.

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the respondents did not follow t.I:e aforesaid procedure laid down under the R.R. Act while issuing destraint order in Form No.1 under Section - 8 of the R.R. Act; demand Prior to attachment of land in Form No.4 under Section -25 of the R.R. Act and Notice of attachment in Form No.5 under Section - 27 of the R.R. Act. Therefore, they are liable to be set aside and accordingly the same are set aside. However, this order will not preclude the respondent authorities in initiating proceedings afresh by strictly following the procedure laid down under the R.R. Act and also the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments."

37.

In the case on hand, there are specific allegations levelled in the complaints that the petitioners, with a dishonest intention, misused and misappropriated the paddy for their personal gain, thereby causing huge financial loss to the Government/Corporation and the issues involved in the Writ Petitions and the Writ Appeals pertain to revenue recovery proceedings. These allegations prima -/aoe disclose a cognizable offence. Hence, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against them is a clear abuse of the process of law, in view of pendency of the Writ Appeals, is not tenable under law.

80

38.

Insofar as the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Corporation supplied substandard paddy, which is not fit for CMR, and supplied excess quantity of paddy are concerned, according to the respondents, the Corporation supplied the paddy ald petitioners/ rice mills have received the same and at that point of Lime, the petitioners did not raise any objection with regard to the alleged substandard quality or excess quantity of paddy.

39.

It is relevant to extract Clause S(7) of the Agreement, which reads as under "Once the paddy has been acccpted through the Truck Chit by tl-re miller, the paddy so received by the miller sha.ll be considered to be correct in terms of quantilr and quality and no dispute shall be entcrtained after such acceptance with regard to thc quality and quantity of thc paddy received by the mille r. " 40- Similarly, clause 5(8) of the Agreement provides that the M ler agrees to store the paddy received by him/it in his/its registered mill premises or in any other place with the approval of District co[ector (cs) in case the receipts exceeded the storage capacity in the m l and it shall remain in the Miller's custody and the Miller will be responsible for any shortage or damage to the paddy/Rice stock.

41.

In respect of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Corporation is due substantial amounts to the 81 petitioners/rice mills towards milling charges, gunny bags, storage charges, etc., however, instead of discharging its obligations, the Corporation has made excessive claims against the petitioners and hled the present complaints is concerned, tJle specilic case of the respondents is that the petitioners have not delivered CMR equivalent to the paddy entmsted by the Corporation and there is a shortfall of huge quantity and unless and until the petitioners satisfactorily deliver CMR, they are not entitled to claim the amounts under the above said heads, in view of Clause 12.4 of tJle Agreement. It is also relevant to extract Clause 12.4 of the Agreement, which reads as under: 42 'The Second Party shall be entitled to the milling charges at the rates prescribed by the Govt. of India, in the provisional cost sheet for KMS 2022-23 for Telangana state, only after completron of the entire milling operations on saLisfactory delivery of rice to FCI or The FAst Party, and t}re reconciliation of gunny accounts, paddy accounts and CMR delivery accounts and also after affecting any recovery to be made arising after reconciliation" The core contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that respondent No.2-the District Manager is not competent to lodge the criminal complaint and that as per the sub-Clause 9. 1.2(3) of Clause 9. I of the Agreement, the Commissioner, Civil Supplies Department/Vc&MD, TSCSCL alone initiate criminal action against defaulted rice mill and all other concerned, apart from disqualifying

82 and debarring the rice mill from participating in future CMR operations. Whereas, the specific case of the respondents is that respondent No.2 is competent authority to lodge the complaints. In support of the said contention, the learned Advocate General relied upon a Memo No.704/CS.I-CCS/2O16, dated t6.tO.2OIZ, whereby Clause 10 stated as follows: "The District Manager, CSC, shall take action to file a criminal case at the Station House Ofhcers where the defaulter rice mill is existing through the Asst, Manager (Tech.), CSC and Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar concemed as complajnt Nos.l and 2."

43.

Learned Advocated General during the course of hearing submitted that the above said Memo is stilt subsisting and the same is binding upon the parties in terms of Clause 3(a) of the Agreement, which reads as under: 'The Second ParB// rice mill agrees ro custom mill the paddy of the The First Party/ Corporation in accordance with the terms and conditions in this agreement and rnstrucdons of the Government/FCI issued from time to time..

44.

In Ratanlal (supra 47), the Honble Apex Court held in paragraph No.B, which read as follows: -In Black,s Law Dictionary, the meaning assigaed to the term "Iocus standi,, is "th heard in a grven forurn,, a" n*nt to bring ar action or to be term "rocus standi,, in ,n"'" ot the meanings assigrred to the I-aw Lexicon of Shri p. Ramanatha

83 Aiyar, is 'a right of appearance in a Court of justice". The traditional view of locus standi has been that the person who is aggrieved or affected has the standing before the court, that is to say, he only.has a right to move the court for seeking justice. The orthodox rule of interpretation regarding the locus standi of a person to reach tJle court has undergone a sea change with the development of constitutional law in India and the constitutional courts have been adopting a liberal approach in dealing with the cases or dislodging t]:e claim of a litigart merely on hyper technical grounds. It is now well- settled that if the person is found to be not merely a stranger to the case, he cannot be non-suited on the ground of his not having locus standi."

45.

In M."ohar Lal v- Vinesh Anand and Ors.6t, this Court has held that the doctrine of locus standi is totally foreigr to criminal jurisprudence. To punish an offender in the event of commission of an offence is to subserve a social need. Society cannot allord to have a criminal escape his liabilify since that would bring about a state of social pollution which is neither desired nor w€uranted and this is irrespective of the concept of locus.

46.

In view of clause 3(a) of the Agreement as well as the Memo dated 16-lo.2017 and the principle laid down by the Honble Apex Court in Ratanlal (supra 4l and Manohar l,al (supra 68), the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that s (zoor) 5 scc 407

84 respondent No.2 is not competent authority to lodge the complaint is not tenable under law.

47.

In respect of the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as per the terms and conditions of tl,re Agreement, the Corporation was required to supply only a specffied quantit5r of paddy. However, it supplied excessive quantities contraqr to the terms of the Agreement, despite the rice mills lacking adequate storage space. As a result, the excess paddy dumped in the premises of the rice mills was damaged due to heavy rains during the year 2022-2023 and at that stage, the Rice Millers Association made a request to the Government stating that the paddy supplied by the Corporation was not fit for CMR. Accorclingly, the Government has taken a decision and conducted an e-tender for the sale of Rabi 2022_ 2023 FAQ paddy procured under MSp operations by the Corporation through Government of Telangana e-Tender platform. As per the terms of the e-tender, the paddy stocks were open for physical inspection by interested bidders and were offered on an .as is where is basis'. Pursuant to the said tender, the successful bidders, after due inspection, participated in the e-tender process and work was awarded to them. Accordingly, the successful bidders lifted the paddy from the premises of the rice mills upon payment of the CorporaLion. Therefore, the reqursite amount to the respondent question of mis-appropna tion or diversion of thc stock by the 85 petitioners does not arise and the petitioners are not liable to pay the alleged amounts claimed towards shortfall of paddy, penalty and interest by the Corporation.

48.

Whereas, the case of the respondents is that there is no dispute witJr respect to the entrustment of paddy under KMS 2022-2023 to tJ:e petiLioners/rice mills and that they have not delivered equivalent quantity of CMR in terms of the Agreement and the petitioners/rice mills did not rise any dispute at the time of supply of the paddy' On the other hand, ttre petitioners, with a dishonest intention, misused and misappropriated the paddy for their personal and pecuniar5r gains.

49.

Whether tfre peLitioners diverted or misused the paddy entrusted by the Corporation for the specihc purpose of CMR with dishonest intention for their personal and pecuniary gain; and whether the successful bidder lifted the entire paddy, along with tl.e other contentions raised by the petitioners are all disputed questions of fact and tJle same have to be revealed during the course of investigation, especially when the investigation is at a nascent stage' and, therefore, cannot be adjudicated and decided by this Court in a proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS.

50.

In Sadhupati Nageswara Rao (supra 411and K. Bharthi Dewi lsupra 5$, the Court held that to constitute offences such as criminal

86 breach of trust or cheating, the prosecution must pima facie establish the essential ingredients--namely, entrustment and dishonest misappropriation in the case of Section 4O9 IpC, and fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception in the case of cheating-and since the existence or absence of such intention is a disputed question of fact requiring euidence, the proceedings cannot be quashed at the threshold under Section 482 Cr.p.C. merely on the ground that the dispute appears to be civil in nature.

51.

It is relevant to mention that in Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka and others6e, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.p.C., the High Court must not act as a trial or appellate court by weighing evidence or testing the truth of allegations. At the quashing stage, the only test is whether the allegations in the compliant, taken at face valwe, pima facie r::ake out the ingredients of the alleged offence. It is further clarified that the High Court should apply two key tests while considering quashing of an FIR (i) whether the allegations, if taken as true, pima /acie constitute an offence, and (ii) whether they are so improbable that no reasonable person courd conclude that suflicient ground exists to proceed. 6n 12O2212 SCC r29

87

52.

The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the offence under Section 316(5) of the BNS is not attracted against the petitioners, as they do not fall within the meaning of 'agent' as envisaged under Section 182 of the Contract Act, 1872, is concerned, there are specific allegations levelled in the complaint that ttre petitioners/rice mills and Corporation entered into an Agreement and pursuant to the said Agreement, the Corporation/Government entrusted a particular quantity of paddy for a specific purpose i.e., CMR. However, the petitioners / rice mills have not delivered the CMR equivalent to the paddy supplied by the Corporation, on the other hand, the petitioners, with a dishonest intention diverted, misused and misappropriated the paddy for their personal alrd pecuniary gains and thereby caused huge loss to the Corporation/ Government.

53.

In Som Nath hrri v. State of RajasthanTo, the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave a wide and purposive interpretation to the expression "entmsted in any manner," holding that entrustment arises whenever property is handed over or comes into the possession of an accused in his official or fiduciary capacity for a specific purpose, even if such possession is initially procured by deceplion, and tl:at dominion over such property, followed by dishonest misappropriation, constitutes criminal breach of trust- nlrszzl r scc e3o

88

54.

In Narindra Kumar :I"il y- Slate of M.EE, the Hon,ble Supreme Court alfirmed the conviction under Section 409 IpC, holding that criminal breach of tr-ust is established where an accused, in a position of responsibility, fails to account for entrusted property and resorts to falsification of records to conceal misappropriation; the Court underscoied that verified shortages proved through reliable evidence, coupled with false explanations, are sulhcient to sustain conviction. 55, In S. Sadashiva Rao v. State of A.P. and a-ootherzz, the erstwhile of High Court of Judicature of Andhra pradesh at I{1,clerabad, while relying upon the principle laid down by the Honble Suprcmc Clourt in Soma Nath Pu.ri (supra 7O) held that the expression 'cntrustment' in Section 409 of the IpC is used in a wider sense and includes a_ll cases in which the property is handed over for a specific purpose and is dishonestly dispossessed contrary to the terms on which the possession has been handed over and further held in paragraph No. 1 1, which reads as follows: "ln the instant case also, on behalf of the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. P.W.I. has entnrsted a total quantity of a I ,640 metric tonnes of steel by work order dt. 3 l _ 12- 1987 and 5- l- 1988 for specific purpose of fabncation and crection of trolley in two instalments on 25_3_I9 I98tJ, :rncl the work hari to be completed befort_, 88 and 6-5- 20-3- 1988. 7 r( 1996 scc (cn) l025) '' 2oo). (1) ALD (crt. ) 393 (AP)

B9 When the accused failed to execute the above said work, time was further extended. Thus, when the steel was entrusted to the accused for a specific purpose, he has dishonestly disposed it of contrary to the terms on which possession was handed over to him. Though ttte accused is an independent contractor and has to use his own means to complete the contract, in view of the wider sense given to t-Le term Agent by the Supreme Court which include all cases in which property is voluntarily handed over for specific purpose, under Section 409 of the Penal Code, 1860 he can be treated as an agent. When the accused has not completed the work of contract, and he failed to account the steel entrusted to him, he has dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated the steel entrusted by P.W.I. Thus, the accused is guilty of the criminal breach of tnrst and, tJrerefore, he is liable to be punished for tlre offence under Section 4O9 of the Penal Code, 186O, inasmuch as, the accused as an agent on behalf of his Principal - P.W.I. has misappropriated the steel entrusted to him. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed by the court below is illegal and contrary to law- Therefore the conviction was confirmed. "

56.

Applyrng the aforesaid setfled principles to the present case, the contention of the petitioners that they do not fall within the ambit of Section 3 16(5) BNS is misconceived. The execution of the agreement and the admitted entrustment of Government paddy clearly establish a relationship of agency coupled with dominion over property. The petitioners, having entered into a contractual arrangement for custom milling, received paddy procured under the MSP scheme, which at all times remained the property of the 90 Corporation, and were under a binding obligation to convert and return the equivalent CMR. Such entrustment for a specific purpose squarely attracts Section 3 16(5) BNS, which encompasses cases where a person, being in any m€rnner entrusted with propert5r or having dominion over it in the capaci$r of an agent, commits breach of trust. The admitted receipt of substantial quantities of paddy, the hduciary nature of possession, and the sigrrificant unexplained shortages revealed during inspection prima facie demonstrate that the petitioners exercised dominion over the property and failed to duly account for it. The mere characterization of the transaction as "job work" does not detract from the legal effect of entrustment, as it is thc existence of control coupled witJl an obligation to return or accolrnt thar is dererminative. Accordingly, the petitioners, by virtue o[ contractual entrustment and resultant dominion over Government proprrty, fall squarely within the ambit of Section 316(5) BNS, consistent with the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions.

57.

In respect of other contention raised by the learned counsel for the pctitioners is that all the clauses of the Agreement are one sided and in favour of Corporation and there are blanks in the Agreement and the dates were also not mentioned is concerned, the Agreement was e-rcrecl bv Lroth rhe parties in the year 2022_23 and this cou( is of the pima factt, view that the valid of the Agreement cannot be :rdjudicared and decided in a proceedings under Section 52g of the 91 BNSS, especially the ground raised by the petiLioners is a disputed fact

58.

In Bihar State Electricit5r Board (supra 4Q, the Honble Supreme Court held that contractual terms must be interpreted holistically by reading the agreement as a whole to ascertain the true intention of the parties, and that standard form contracts are enforceable if they are fair and not opposed to public policy; hence, selective reliance on a single clause in isolation cannot justify quashing, as the matter requires a complete and contextual examination of the contract, and therefore quashing of the proceedings is not permissible when investigation is at the threshold stage.

59.

Insofar as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr1.P.No.28O9 of 2026 that the alleged inspection was conducted on 16.lO.2O25,.the report was submitted on 27.1O-2O25, and that the present complaint was lodged on 23.02.2026 after a lapse of nearly four montJ:s, and on the said ground, the compla-int is liable to be quashed is concerned, merely on the ground of delay in lodging the complaint, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at the tlreshold, particularly when the State Government/Corporation has adopted a welfare oriented policy of procuring paddy from farmers at the MSP and entrusted the same to 92 the petitioners/ Rice Mills under the f.greemgnt fol qMR, however, the petitioners failed to deliver the equivalent quantity of CMR to the Corporation/ Government as agreed and on the contrar5r, diverted the same for personal gain, thereby causing huge financial Ioss to the Government/ CorporaLion and afiecting public interest.

60.

It is relevant to mention that in Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio- Vascular DiseasesT3, the constitutional Bench of the Hon,ble Supreme Court has specifically held that the period of limitation is to be calculated from the date of filing of tJ e complaint or charge_sheet, not from the date of the FIR or the date of cognizance. The Court further clarified that the bar of limitation not arfect the investigation process. In Assistant Collector of Customs v. L.R. Melwaniza, the constitutional Benctr of the Hon'ble Apex court has observed that mere delay in filing a complaint cannot by itself be a ground to quash proceedings and rnay only be considered during trial. In Vanka Radhamanohari v. Vanka Venkata Reddyzs, ttre Hon,ble Apex court also held that when any of the offences aleged is punishable with imprisonment o[ n.- ore than three years, the entire prosecution is outside the scope of limitation. )t (2014) 2 scc 6) '" 1968 SCC Onlrne SC 1Gr ' (1993) 3 SCC 4

93

61.

In Hasmukhld D. Vora ard another v. State of Tamil Nadu76, the Honble Apex Court while referring to the judgment Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar?7 held that where inordinate and unexplained delay in prosecution can indicate mala fide intent and be fatal to the case. When there is no explanation offered for the delay, leading the court to infer a possible sinister motive. Emphasizing that criminal proceeding must serve justice and not be used to harass, the Court quashed the complaint proceedings pending in the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court. In the case on hand, the issue of delay in lodging the complaint is a matter for investigation and trial, it cannot be decided at this stage, as there are specific allegations against the petitioners. 62. ln Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya Y. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari and others78, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a delay in lodging an FIR or complaint cannot by itself be a ground to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C' The Court clarified that the issue of delay is a matter of evidence to be examined during trial, where the complainant can be questioned about and explain the reasons for such delay during cross-examination' Therefore, the mere fact that the FIR or complaint was filed belatedly does not justify the quashing of proceedings at the threshold; as such '" zoz3 1I'1ALT (crl.) 102 (sc) " (zooz) 9 scc r47 '8 zozr (3) ALT (crt.) 480 (sc)

94 determinations require appreciation of facts and evidence, which falls within the domain of the trial court.

63.

It is a-lso relevant to mention that in cases involving misuse or misappropriation of pubric funds and werfare-oriented procurement schemes, delay in lodging the complaint by itself does not vitiate the crimina-l proceedings, particularly when the a_llegations pertain to misappropriation of huge quantity of paddy entmsted by the Corporation for a specific purpose under the Agreement and non_ delivery of cMR equivalent to the paddy so entrusted. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the Crimes on the ground of delay in lodging the complaints at this stage.

64.

With regard to the other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even according to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, the employees of the Corporation are also liable for prosecution in view Clause lO of the Agreement, which deals with Joint custody'. However, respondent No.2 has lodged the complaints against the petitioners / rice mills, without impricating their employees as accused_ According to the respondents, the role of the emproyees of trre corporation is very limited only for inspection of the records and stocks during the currency of the Agreement.

95

65.

It is further relevalt to mention that mere non-inclusion of the employees of the Corporation as accused is not fatal to the prosecution and the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings on the said ground. Whether there is any conspiracy between the employees of the Corporation and the petitioners regarding the alleged diversion of paddy and misappropriation and there is any role of the employees of the Corporation in the crimes, the same will be revealed during the course of investigation, especially the investigation is at threshold.

66.

It is relevant to mention that the scope of the present criminal petition is very limited, whether tJre allegations levelled in the complaint pimo facie discloses cognizable offences which attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 3L6(21,316(5) and 318(3) of the BNS and Section 7 of the E.C. Act or not; whether the petitioners are entitled to seek quashing of tlre proceedings at crime stage or not. tt is already stated supra that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners in the complaint that the petitioners have not delivered CMR equivalent to the paddy which was entrusted for specific purpose as per the Agreement and is dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated and diverted the paddy for their personal and pecuniary gain. The said allegations pnma .ifacie disclose cognizable offences. whether the allegations levelled in 96 the complaint are true or not can only be revealed during the course of investigation, especially the investigation is at threshold. 67 . The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Ashok Kumar (supra 34), Atluri Sitara ndas (supra 9), Sadhupati Nageswara Rao /supra 4.1/, Sushil Sethi /supra 6i, Inder Chand Bagri /supra I2l, Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah (s-upra 14), S.N. Vijayalakshmi (supra 16), Vandana Jain (supra 36), Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verrna (supra 27), and Sharad Kumar Sanghi /supra 7), tl:,e Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere breach of contract, non-performance of obligations, or civil disputes cannot be given a criminal colour unless the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are clearly established. For offences like cheating (sections 4ls/42o IPC), dishonest or fraudulen t intention must exist at the very inception of the transaction, while for criminal breach of trust (Sections 405/406/409 IPC), there must be specific entrustment coupled with dishonest misappropriation and mens rea, and in the case of Section 409, such entrustment must be in a fiduciar5r capacity of a specified category. The .;udgments further emphasize that vicarious liabilify cannot be presumed without specific allegations, and that civil disputes, partnership issues, or contractual breaches, in the absence of criminal intent, do not attract penal consequences. Accordingly, where allegations are vague, lack essential ingredients, or are initiated to harass or exert pressure, the 97 Courts are duty-bound, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to look beyond the mere averrnents and quash such proceedings to prevent abuse of process of law and secure the ends ofjustice 67.1. ln Ma.hmood Ni (supra 17), S,lioy Ghosh (supra 3), Raiiv Thapar (supra), and Sri Gulam Mustafa (supra 62), the Honble Supreme Court has held that, while exercising jr:ri iction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is not confined to a mere reading of the FIR or complaint, but is required to undertake a holistic and pragmatic evaluation of the enLire material on record. If, upon such examination, the Court finds that the criminal proceedings are manifestly frivolous, vexatious, or malicious, or are instituted with ulterior motives such as to wreak personal vengeance or to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute or where unimpeachable material of sterling quality placed on record clearly demolishes the prosecution case, the Court would be justified in exercising its inherent juri iction to quash the proceedings, notwithstanding 'that the allegations in the complaint may pima facie disclose the ingredients of an offence, so as to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

98

67.2.

In Anukul Singh /supra 22), A.M. Mohan (supra t3), Rajib Ranjan (supra 1B), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd,. (supra 21), and Kailash Verma (supro 61), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that criminal law cannot be invoked as a tool of harassment, private vendetta, or coercion in disputes which are essentially civil or contractual in nature, and mere allegations of breach of contract, non-paSrment, or commercial default do not constitute criminal offences unless the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are clearly established, such as dishonest intention at the inception in cases of cheating or entrustment coupled with dishonest misappropriation in cases of criminal breach of trust; it is further emphasized that initiation of criminal proceedrngs alongside civil remedies or through multiple or successive FtRs is indicative of mala fide intent and abuse of process, and in thc absence of specifrc and cogent allegations demonstrating active involvement and criminal intent, continuation of such proceedings is legally unsustainable and liable to be quashed to prevent misuse of the criminal justice system. 67.3'. In Delhi Race Club l194Of Ltd (supra I5l, the Hon,ble Supreme Court held that: Cheating and criminal breach of trust are distinct and mutually exclusive offences. cheating requires dishonest intention from the very beginning of the transactton, whereas crirninal breach of trust arises when but later dishones y mi sappropriated. property is lawfully entrusted Hence, both offences generally

99 cannot coexist on the same facts, and authorities must carefully distinguish between them.

68.

The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners in paragraph Nos.

66.

I to 66.3 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In those cases, the disputes were purely civil in nature, arising out of breaches of contract without any allegation of fraudulent or dishonest intent at the inception. However, in the present case, there are specific allegations of entrustment of paddy and failure to deliver CMR equivalent to the paddy entrusted by the Corporation. It is further alleged that the petitioners misappropriated and diverted the paddy for their personal gains, which if accepted at face value, discloses the ingredients of the offences alleged against them.

69.

The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Jayalakshmi Rice MiIl Contractors C. (supra 5), Lakshminarayan Ram Gopal and Son Ltd. (supra 33) and Krishna Bhatta (supra 37), the Honble Supreme Court held ttrat the true test of an agency relationship is not mere emploSrment, paSrment of commission, or performance o[ assigned work, but t]re existence of authority to act on behalf of the principal and to create or alIect legal relations with third parties. The distinction primarily turns on the degree of control and the presence of independent discretion: a servant is subject to complete control and supervision not only as to 100 what work is to be done but also how it is to be done; an agent, though bound by instructions, retains independence in the manner of performance and possesses a representative character enabling him to bind the principal; whereas a person who merely acts under directions, without any such authoritSz or discrelion, is only a Licensee or instrumentality. Thus, authority to bind the principal, representative capacit5r, and the extent of control versus independence are the determinative factors in identifying the tme nature of the relationship. 69.1. ln UCO Bank (supra 32), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a bailee has only custody/possession of goods without any authoritlr to represent or bind the bailor, whereas an agent has representative authority to create lega_l relations on behalf of the principal; thus, bailment lacks the element of representation esserltial to agency. 69.2. ln Baldeo Narain Singh lrszpra 35/, the patna High Court held that when goods are given for a specific purpose and ownership remains with the giver, the receiver becomes er bailee under the Indian Contract Act 1872. Ttre bailee must use the goods only for that purpose, take reasonable care, and return or deal with them as agreed-otherwise, he is liable for breach of bailment or misappropriation.

69.11.

In Bal Kishan Das (supra 11) and, Laxmi Nr. Sah (supra 1O), it is held that where a dispute arises out of a contractual relationship

tol especially when civil remedies or arbitration are available or already invoked it remains purely civil in nature, and mere allegations of breach, shortage, or non-perforrnance do not constitute a criminal offence. For offences like criminal breach of trust (Sections 406 / 4O9 IPC), there must be clear proof of entrustment, dishonest misappropriation, ald mens rea; in their absence, the dispute cannot be given a criminal colour The Courts have emphasized that invoking criminal proceedings in such circumstances, especially when civil or arbitral remedies are available or pending, amounts to abuse of the process of law, and such proceedings are liable to be quashed to secure the ends of justice

70.

The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners in paragraph Nos.68.1 to 68.3 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the Corporation entrusted the paddy for a specific purpose in terms of the Agreement and the petitioners dishonestly diverted and misappropriated the same for tJreir personal gains. These allega tior,s pnma facie fall within the ambit of crimina,l breach of trust.

71.

In Kishan Singh (supra 2O) ar.d Dilawar Singh lsupra 26), tlre Hon'ble Supreme Court held that lodging of an FIR is a crucial safeguard ensuring the spontaneity and authenticity of the prosecr.rtion case. Unexplained or inordinate delaying registration of the FIR raises serious doubt of embellishment, deliberation, or 102 fabncation. Such delay must be satisfactorily explained, failing which it undermines the credibility of the prosecution and may, in appropriate cases, prove fatal. Further, where the delay appears deliberate or mala fide, aimed at harassment or vengeance, the criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law, justifying interference and quashing by the Court.

72.

The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Kishan Singh /supra 2O) and, Dilwar Singh /supra 26l are is not applicable to the facts and circumstalces of the case on the ground that in thc said cases relied upon there was inordinate and unexplainecl delay, whereas in the present cases, there is no such delay in lodging the complaint, more particularly, in the present cases huge quantity ol the paddy purchased by the Government from the larmers under MSP, entrusted through the Corporation to the petitioners/ rice mills for CMR. However, the petitioners failed to deliver the CM R as per the Agreement and are alleged to have diverl.ed for their personal gains, as a result of which, the Government / Corporation has sustained huge financial loss.

73.

In S.K. Bhargava (supra 2$, the Hon,ble Supreme Court held that even though the statute does not expressly provide for an opporrunity of hearing, the principles of natural justice must be read rnto it, as the power to .determine. the ,.5tr111 6l.,,., rmplies the exrstence of a lis therefore, the authority is bound to grve notice and r03 an opportunity of hearing to the aJlected party, and any determination made without such opportunity is vitiated in law.

74.

The above said judgment in S.K. Bhargava (supro 2$ relied upon by ttre learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case, especially the invocation of an arbitration clause is a civil remedy for contractual breaches and cannot substitute or override the criminal process where the acts complained of constitute offences under law al arbitrator has no juri iction to try criminal charges, even if they arise out of tl:e same transaction.

75.

In J. Shri Kersi H, Vachha (supra 4), Suresh Singh (supra 24), and N. Gopinath (supra 8), the courts have held that a criminal proceeding is maintainable only when it satishes both procedural and substantive legal requirements it must be instituted by a duly authorized person in strict compliance with statutory provisions, and the complaint must contain clear, specific averments disclosing all essential ingredients of the offence. Any defect in au thorization, procedural non-compliance, non-impleadment of necessar5l parties (e.g., company), or vague allegations in a predominantly civil dispute renders the proceedings unsustainable and an abuse of process, justifying quashing by the court.

76.

The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners in J. Shri Kersi H. Vachha (supra 4), Suresh Singh lrsupra 24), atd N.

t04 Gopinath (supra 8) are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case, in view of Clause 3(a) of the Agreement, wherein it is stipulated that the instructions issued by the Government/FCl from time to time are binding upon the parties to the Agreement, The Government had issued Memo dated 16.10.2017, rvherein Clause 1O authorizes the District Manager, CSC, to initiate criminal action against the defaulter rice mills.

77.

The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P Nos,3O74, 3145 and 3587 of 2026 are that the petitioners had submitted their resignations to their respective positions even prior to the execution of .the Agreement between the Corporation and tl-re tlice Millers and the sarne were accepted by their respective Conrp:rnies zrs well as the competent authority and that they are not the parties to the said Agreement. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law. Whereas, respondent No.2 in his counter has denied the same and contended that mere resignaLion on paper does not absolve criminal liability, particularly when there are specific allegations regarding the entrustment of paddy and subsequent rnisappropriation of the said paddy. Whether the a.llegations levelled i. rhe complaint against the petitioners are true or nor' wherher the ')etitioners are having any rore in the respective Rice Mills or nor by virtue of their resigrations enclosed along with 105 the criminal petitions; and whether any other material exists to connect the petitioners with the alleged crime are to be revealed during the course of investigation, especially the investigation is at threshold and the grounds which were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are purely disputed questions of facts and same cannot be adjudicated at ttris stage.

78.

Insofar as the other submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in similar circumstances, this Court, while disposing of the Criminal Petition Nos. 12O37 of 2024 dated O3.1O.2O24,895 of 2024 dated 25.OL.2O24 and 146I of 2022 dated 07.06.2022, directed the Investigating Officer to follow the due procedure as contemplated under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C./Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines issued by the Honlcle Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra 231 and the petitioners are also entitled to the very sarne benefit is concerned, the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners constitute cognizable offences and the punishment prescribed for the offences levelled in the complaints is more than seven years. Once this Court comes to the conclusion that it is not a frt case to quash the proceedings, it does not have the power to issued a direction to the Investigating Officer to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section3 5(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines issued by the Honb'le Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra 231. 106 79 . [n Bhajan Lal (supra 51), the Hontle Supreme Court delineated the limited scope of the High Court,s juri iction under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 Cr.p.C. to quash criminal proceedings, holding that such power may be exercised only in exceptional cases where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any offence, are inherently improbable, lega_lly barred, or rnanifestly ma-la fide, while cautioning tJ:at the categories so enumerated are illustrative and the power rmrst be exercised sparingly.

80.

The above said principles were reiterated in Neeharika Infrastructure {Pf Ltd. (supra 29), wherein -it was emphasised that the police have zr statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offences and that Courts should not interdict investigation at the threshold unless no cognizable offence is disctrosed on a plain reading of the FIR; the F-lR is not expected to be an encyclopedia of all facts, and criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at their nascent stage. In the present case, the allegations made in the complaint pima facie disclose cog-nrzable offences, and as the investigation is still in progress, (he petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at the thrcshold.

81.

It is already stated supra that there are specific allegations levelled in the complaints that the petitioners/Rice Mil,s have not delivered CMR equivalent to the paddy entrusted by the Corporation

LO7 for specilic purpose as per the Agreement and they dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated and diverted the paddy for their persona-l and pecuniary gains. The said allegations prima facie disclose cognizable offences and require investigation. Hence,m this Court is of the considered view that ttre petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings especially t}le investigation is at threshold. a2. For the foregoing reasons as well as the precedent decisions, this Court does not hnd any ground to quash the proceedings by exercising the powers conferred under Section 4a2 of the Cr.P.C./Section 528 of the BNSS and the sarne are liable to be dismissed.

83.

Accordingly, all the criminal petitions are hereby dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. MOHD.ISMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR / /'URTJECOPY/ / SECTION OITFICER One Fair Copy to the l{on'ble Sri f ustice } SREENIVAS RAO (For His LordshiPs Kind Perusal) To,

1.

The Judicial First Class Magisrrate at Nakrekal.

2.

The iudicial Magistrate of First Class at Bodhan.

3.

The J udicial First Class Magistrate at Bichkunda.

4.

The Judkial First Class Magistrate at Banswada-

5.

The Additional Junior CivilJudge-spl. Judicial First Class (Mobile) Magistrate at Kamareddy.

6.

The Judiciil First Class Magistrate at Kamareddy'

7.

The judicial First Ctass Mag'istratc at Yellareddy' ii it .irJi."f First Class Ma'11stratc. (Special Mo6ile\ Court at Nalgondd q Thc III Additional l"i;tU;iii;d|"t"m-[r Ad'ditionalMagistrate tr{ First (lass at Nalgonda. 10 The Additional Judicial I;irst Class Magisrrate at Bodhan. 11 gt" y Additional Jucliciat lrirsr Clss Migisrrate ar Nizamabad.

12.

The Judicial First Class Magisrrate at Nirayankhed.

13.

The VI Additional Judicial irirst Class Magistrate at Warangal.

14.

The f udicial First Class Magisrrate at Atmakur.

15.

The III Additional Judicial First Class Magisrrare at Nalgonda.

15.

The Judicial Firsr Class Magistrare (Specia"l Mobile) Cou"rt at Khammam.

17.

The ]udicial First Class Ma[istrate ar Nalgonda.

18.

The station House officer,\izamabad R"ural police statiorL Nizamabad.

19.

The station House officer, !.ufs"1au II Town porice station, r.l"ig."a".

20.

The Station House Office r, Chit-yal police Station, Nalgonda.

21.

The Station House Officcr, Bhainsa Rural police StatiJn, Nirmal.

22.

The Station House Office r, Kothakota police Station, Wanaparthy.

23.

The Station House Officcr, Bhainsa Rural police Station, N'irma(

24.

The Station House Officer, Kotagiri police Station, Nizamabad.

25.

The Station House Officer, Nasr"ullabad police Statiory Kamareddy.

25.

The Station House Office r, Machareddy police Station, Kamareddv.

27.

The Station House Officer, Kethapally i,olice Station, N.f go"d". -''

28.

The station House officcr, Katarim police starion, fayaslinkar Bhupally District.

29.

The station House officer, Nerakondapalli police sialion, Khammarir. '

30.

The Station House Officer, Nalgonda Rural police Stafion, Nulgo;Ja.

31.

The Station House Off iccr, Nariapur police Station, N irmal.

32.

The Station House Officcr, ye,rgjtta, Nizamabad.

33.

The Station House Officcr, Mungode police Station, Nalgonda.

34.

The Station House Officcr, Varnl police Station, Nizamabad.

35.

The Station House Officer, li.S"pr1. l,olice Starion, Sangareddy.

36.

The Station House Officcr, l,itiim policc Station, Kamar"eddy. '

37.

The Station House Officcr, N.izamsagar police Station, Kamaieddy.

38.

The station House officcr, Thangaltipalti police sration, Rajanna'sircilla.

39.

The station House officcr, sadaiiva irragar police station, ramarediv. -

40.

The Station House Officer, Machareddy"potice Station, Ka^.i"aar.-'

41.

The Station House Off iccr, yellareddy 'police Station, ku-u."JJf' '

42.

The Station House Officer, Ramareddy police Station, Kamareddy.

43.

The Station House Officer, Birkur Policc Station, Kamareddy.

44.

The Station House Officer, Nagircddypet Police Station, Kamareddy.

45.

The Station House Officer, Lingampet Police Station, Kamareddy.

46.

The Station House Officer, Madnoor Police Station, Kamareddy.

47.

The Station House Officer, Bichkunda Police Station, Kamareddy'

48.

The Station House Officer, Raiam Pet Police Station, Kamareddy'

49.

The Station House Officer, Jukkal Police Station, Kamareddy'

50.

The Station House Officer, Sultanabad Police Station, Ramagundam'

51.

The Station House Officer, Bodhan Rural Police Station, Nizamabad'

52.

The Station House Officer, Sirpur -T Police StatiorL Kumuram Bheem Asifabad District.

53.

The Station House Officer, Ghanpur Police Station, Wanaparthy District'

54.

One CC to Sri lCVenumadhav, Advocate [OPUC] 55, One CC to Sri Praveen Kumar Veerajala, Advocate TOPUCI

56.

One CC to Sri lCBuchibabu, Advocate [OPUC]

57.

One CC to Sri N.Manohar, Advocate [OPUC]

58.

One CC to Sri Kavadi Naresh, Advocate [OPUC]

59.

One CC to Sri Lohit Sannapaneni, Advocate [OPUC]

60.

One CC to Sri Keerthi Simha, Advocate [OPUC]

61.

One CC to Sri C.Haripreeth, Advocate [OPUC] 62, One CC to Sri V.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]

63.

One CC to Sri Bhargav Krishna,L.Advocate [OPUC]

64.

One CC to Sri Chalakani Venkat Yadav, Advocate IOPUC]

65.

One CC to Sri Somavarapu Satyanarayana, Advocate [OPUC]

66.

One CC to Mrs. Devineni Radha Rani, Advocate [OPUC]

67.

One CC to Sri K.Durag Prasad, Advocate [OPUCI

68.

One CC to Sri Banda Prasada Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

69.

One CC to Sri Guiiula Madhusudhan, Advocate [OPUC]

70.

One CC to Sri Venkataramanaial-r.K, Advocate [OPUC] 7l.Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the state of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

72.

Two CCs to Advocate Ceneral, Hlgh Court Buildings, Hyderabad [OUT] 73. 11 LR Copies.

74.

The Under secretary, union of tndia Ministry of law, Justice and Company Af(airs, New Delhi

75.

The secretary Telangana Advocates AssociatiorL Library, High Court Buildings Hyderabad. 76.Two CD Copies. JCK/KA d*

HIGHCOURT D,A.TED: 05/05/2026 CC)MMONORDER Disrnissing aII the Criminal Petirions 0t\ 1tlE _s -\ t ,i c 05 JU|J 202[ .?u.trora*a * o CRLP.Nos.2809,957,981,7620,2608,2878,2853,2856,2857,2977,2928,zgM,3028,g02g, 30i'4,3742,3743,31,M,31.45,3206,3426,3433,3587,3921, 4024,4027,40s8,4145,4249,4250, 4255, 4256, 4257, 4259, 4260, 4267, 431.6, 4367, 4383, 4482, 4483, 4485, 4486, 4558;,, 4559, 4624, 4460, 462, 478r,5194, 5220, 5252,5505, 5986, 6057, 6257,6385 AND 6863 0F 2026 I I l ( $-* t. (, .)- *

Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.