IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.553 OF 2016 DATE: 12.02.2026 Between:

Udatha Nagaraju and 8 others …Petitioners AND The State of Telangana and 2 others …Respondents :ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to F.I.R. No. 197 of 2015 dated 09-07-2015 on the file of Station House Officer, Keesara Police Station, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, to the extent of petitioners herein/Accused No.2, 30, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49 and 50 and Quash the FIR No.197 of 2015 of Keesara Police Station, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District to the extent of petitioners herein/Accused No.2, 30, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 50 by declaring it as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of Natural Justice.....”

2. Heard Mr. Sameer Shaik, learned counsel representing Mr.Bollam Lingaiah Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the petitioners are engaged in different businesses in their respective localities. On

09.07.2015, the Assistant Supply Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District, conducted a panchanama and seized certain stocks from the petitioners’ premises. Based on the said panchanama, he lodged a complaint before respondent No.2. Acting on the said complaint, respondent No.2 registered a case against the petitioners and other accused in F.I.R. No.197 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Assistant Supply Officer had no power or authority to search the petitioners’ premises or to seize the commodities in question. It is further submitted that wheat was deleted from the relevant Control Order in the year 2014 and that no licence is required to carry on business in wheat, wheat products, or rice. Despite this, the Assistant Supply Officer conducted a panchanama and seized the stocks without proper authority and without verifying the relevant legal position. On the basis of the said panchanama alone, respondent No.2 registered the above crime. Therefore, it is prayed that the proceedings in F.I.R. No.197 of 2015 be quashed as against the petitioners.

5. In this position, the point that arises for determination is whether F.I.R. No.197 of 2015, dated 09.07.2015, registered against the petitioners, is liable to be quashed?

6. In order to attract an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must establish (i) entrustment of property, and (ii) dishonest misappropriation or conversion of the entrusted property by the accused. Section 406 prescribes punishment for criminal breach of trust, which may extend to three years’ imprisonment, or fine, or both.

7. To constitute an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, it must be shown that the accused cheated a person and thereby dishonestly induced the person deceived to deliver property, or to make, alter, or destroy a valuable security. The essential ingredients of cheating are: (i) a false representation or deception, (ii) dishonest or fraudulent inducement, and (iii) delivery of property or alteration/destruction of a valuable security as a consequence of such inducement.

8. In the present case, neither the ingredients of criminal breach of trust nor those of cheating are prima facie made out. The allegation is that the petitioners purchased PDS rice and wheat and resold the same. There is no material to show any entrustment of property to the petitioners so as to attract Section 406 IPC. Similarly, there is no allegation of any fraudulent or dishonest inducement practiced upon any person resulting in delivery of property so as to co