Ranga Bhasker v. The State of Telangana

Petition under 528 of the 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 against the petitioners/accused No.1 & 2 in CC No. 128 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class & Special lVlobile at Kamareddy 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 Alluri Divakar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None appeared for Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER TN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HiONOURABLE SRI .IUSTICE J.SREBNIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETI'IION No.763 of 2026 Date:27.01.2026 Between Ranga Bhasker artd anothcr AND ...Petitioners The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, I{igh Court at Hyderabad tbr the State of Telangana, and another ...Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.l an<l 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.l28 of . 2023 on the lile of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class and Special Mobile at Kamareddy

Heard Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, Iearned counsel lor the petitioner; and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Pr<lsecutor for respondent No.1.

Thr: specitic allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos.l and 2 is that they have procured PDS rice lrom the beneficiaries at 2 cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 14.12.2022, the petitioners were found in possession of 23.90 quintals of PDS rice

l-earned counsel tbr the petitioners rvould submit that rvithout there being any corn plaint from any beneficiary, alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging the petitioners for prosecution is untenable and irnproper. 1'he allegations, even taken at their face value cannot be sustairred against the petitioners. Further, this Court irr Crl.P.No. 5709 ol 20 I 9 and 3349 of 2015 while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the offences alleged against the petitioners therein cannot be continued and quashed the proceedings. The petitioners are also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per prosecution. the offence said to have been committed by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and requested to pass appropriate orders.

Section 7 and B of the Essential Comrnodities Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, ? .0" .=-? 3 supply, clistribution and trade of, essential cornrnodities or abetrnent in this regard, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitir)r1ers have procured PDS rice fl'orn the berreficiaries al'ter supply fi'orn the dealer.

A (loordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7221 of 2025 has ,;onsidered the identical facts and observed that "-fhele is no averment indicating that the pctitioner in anv way deccptively induccd thc benellciarics to part r.rith thc supplied PDS ricc or thc beneliciarl, cntrlrsted the P[)S ricc purchased by them with the petitioner and they dishonestll niisappropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violation of a lawful direction or contract. In the absence ol esse ntial f-actors. on the face cf prosecution, this Court firnds it to be a [it case to cxercise the jrrrisdiction under Section 528 of IINSS, 2023. Thus, contirruance of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of proce is of larrl'.

The facts and circurnstances of the present case also similar to those in the above case and hence, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS b), applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedint3s against the petitioners herein.

The Additional Judicial tVlagistrate First Class & Special [\4obile at Kamareddy 2. The Station House Officer, Ralampet Police Station, Kamareddy District 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad

4. One CC to Sri. Alluri Divakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies GNK/PSL \ To HIGH COURT DATED: 1171O112026 ORDER CRLP.No 763 of 2026 f ) .J , ,1 -,..,. ( * lHE S 2',i IIp 7l]2r * ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION o6 2-A