2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 41942
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Al Kabeer Exports Pvt. Ltd. Rep by Its Director. – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings Hyderabad and another. – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10115 OF 2017
##PAGE1##
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.10115 OF 2017 Between:
Al Kabeer Exports Pvt. Ltd., Rep by Its Director.
… Petitioner/Accused No.1 AND The State of Telangana Rep., by its Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings, Hyderabad and another.
… Respondents.
Date of Judgment pronounced on : 28-10-2026 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes May be allowed to see the judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes to Law Reporters/Journals:
3. Whether His Lordships wishes to see the fair copy: Yes of the Judgment?
_______________ N. TUKARAMJI, J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.10115 OF 2017 % 28-10-2026 # Al Kabeer Exports Pvt. Ltd., Rep by Its Director.
##PAGE2##… Petitioner/Accused No.1 Versus $ The State of Telangana Rep., by its Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings, Hyderabad and another.
… Respondents.
GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. B.S. Prasad, learned Senior counsel appearing for Mr. Chunap Anvesh Kiran, learned Counsel for the petitioner ^ Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Mr. M. Vivekanand Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 State and Mr. Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Pollution Control Board/respondent No.2 ? Cases referred
1. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 208;
2. (2015) 4 SCC 609;
##PAGE3##3. (2015) 12 SCC 422;
4. (1998) 5 SCC 749; 5. (2013) 3 SCC 330;
6. CFM-M-25792 of 2021, dated 19.04.2022;
7. (2004) 2 SCC 731;
8.1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
9. (1997) 4 SCC 241;
10. MANU/SC/0348/2023;
11. (2024) 15 SCC 282;
12. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1498;
13. MANU/SC/0272/2021;
14. (2020) 3 SCC 317;
15. MANU/SC/0529/2021;
16. 2024 INSC 583;
17. MANU/SC/1087/2023;
18. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947;
19. (2000) 3 SCC 745; 20. (2009) 2 SCC 147; 21. (1996) 5 SCC 647
22. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315
23. (2023) 18 SCC 399 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.10115 OF 2017 (CNR No. HBHC010826432017)
##PAGE4##DATE: 28.10.2026 Between :
Al Kabeer Exports Pvt. Ltd., Rep by Its Director.
… Petitioner/Accused No.1 AND The State of Telangana Rep., by its Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings, Hyderabad and another.
… Respondents.
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC”) seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C. No.248 of 2017 on the file of Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 in the above Case.
2. I have heard Mr. B.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. Chunap Anvesh Kiran, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. M. Vivekanand Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 State and Mr. Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Pollution Control Board/respondent No.2.
##PAGE5##Factual matrix:
3.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Al Kabeer Exports Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Mumbai and its factory at Rudraram Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District, Telangana. The petitioner is engaged in meat processing and allied activities and claims to have commenced commercial production in 1993 after obtaining the requisite statutory permissions, including consent from the 2nd respondent, the Telangana State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”).
3.2. The case of the 2nd respondent, represented by its Environmental Engineer, Sangareddy, is that the petitioner violated the conditions stipulated in the Consent Order dated 03.09.2015 by improperly disposing of animal waste through burial pits instead of adopting the prescribed methods of disposal. The complaint further alleges that such activities resulted in environmental pollution and contamination of nearby ponds, wells and groundwater, adverse