Chittari Ramesh v. The State of Telangana

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, At Hyderabad. .... Respondent No.1/Respondent

2. Sri. A.Rajitha,, Wo. Not Known, Aged.Not Known, Occ.Sub-lnspector of Police, P.S. Machareddy Police Station. ...RESPONDENT No.2/De-facto Com plainants Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the [\4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC.No.270 OF 2,024, dated 23-06-2022, on the tile of Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, At Jagtial District. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to grant STAY of all further proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.1, in CC.No.27O OF 2024, dated 23-06-2022, on the file of Hon'ble Judicial tVlagistrate of First Class, At Jagtial District, pending disposal of the main quash proceedings. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri MAHMAD NAYEEMODDIN, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Resporrdent No.2. The Court marle the following: ORDER I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETIT N No.172 of 2026 DATE OF ORDER:- 08.01.2026 Between: Chittari Ramesh, Rl/o.Korutla & another ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.8 & 9 AND The State of Telangana rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad & another. ...Respondents ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.8 & I in C.C.No.270 of 2024, on the file of the leamed Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jagtial District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of IPC and Section 7(1)(a[i) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Sections 181, 1gilt1/'7 of Motor Vehicles Act. ) ) 2 ETD,J Crl.P.No.172 _2026 1r

2. Herard Mr.Mahmad Nayeemoddin, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.B & I as well as Sri Jitender Rao veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the resp,:ndent No.1- State.

3. The specific allegation against the petitioners is that they procure(l PDS Rice from common people of various villages at lower price for selling the same at higher price and on 09.05.2022 at 2o:00 hours, the petitioners were found in possession of 150 euintats of PDS rict:.

4. Lt:arned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that without there being any complaint from any beneficiary alleging that the Rice, was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent, charging the petitioners for prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations leveled against the petitioners cannot be sustained. Further, this court in crl.P.Nos.5709 of 2019 and 33493 of 201s, while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the offence:; alleged against the petitioner therein cannot be continued and quashed the proceedings. The petitioners herein are atso entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the V -J' proceeclings against the petitioners. !I ,t I I I i i I i 1 i j I I I I I 3 ETD,J Crl.P.No.172 _2026

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that as per prosecution, the offences said to have been committed by the petitioner is cheating and violation of Sections 7 and B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and hence requested to pass appropriate orders.

6. Perused the material available on record.

7. Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities or abetment in this regard, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioners herein have procured PDS Rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer.

8. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025 has \ \ considered the identical facts and observed that- "There is no averment indicating that the petitioners in any way deceptivety induced the beneficiaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitioners and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violation of a lawful direction or contract- ln the absence of essential factors, On the face of prosecution, this court finds it to be a fit case to exercise the {It I I I I i 4 ETD,J Crl.P.No.172 2025 i-\, junsdiction under secfion 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of prc,ceedings agarnsf the petitioners is abuse of process of law.,'

9. Tl^e facts and circumstances of the present case also are similar to those in the above case and hence, this Court finds it to be a fit cas,: to exercise jurisdiction under Section S2g of BNSS, 2O2g by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein.

10. Ar;cordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceed ngs against the petitioners/accused Nos.B & g in c.c.No.:270 of 2024, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jagtial District, are hereby quashed.

11. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/- T. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judicial [Vlagistrate or First Class at Korutla. 2. The S[{O, PS Kathlapur, Jagtial. 3. One C3 to SRl. MAHMAD NAYEETUODDIN Advocate 4. One CC to Addl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [O 5. Two CD Copies GE/PSL _I-)&v() J> loPUCl PUCI I ! I I I I I I t i t t I I i I i I I' i i HIGH COURT DATED:08101t2026 ORDER CRLP.No.172 ol 2026 , 4t r o() ( * S 1 ?-. illl tt,,!ll ) .a rcr'"' ALLOWING I-HE CRLP WITHOUT COSTS JK 'l'/u