Shaik lrfan v. The State of Telangana

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad

2. P. Nikhil Raj, Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Nizamabad Town and District. Pincode 503001 ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS l Petrtion under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 praying that in the circumslances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the impugned proceedings in F.l.R. No. 300 of 2025, at the file of the Nizamabad Vl Town Police Station, Nizamabad District, in so far as Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 1 to 3, are concerned; l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026 Petitron under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the [\r'lemorandum of Grounds of Crimrnal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings in F.l.R. No 30O oI 2025, on the file of the Nizamabad Vl Town Police Station Nizamabad District., including arrest, appearance and attendance of the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 3, This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petrtion and upon hearing the arguments of Sri GAJE RAGHU, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. '1 and none appear for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER TNTHE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OIi -] ELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE J.SRT]EI IVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETI'I'ION No.l25l of l'.1 26 Date:03.02.2026 Between: Shaik lrfan and two others 'fhe State of Tclangana, Rep, by its I'ublic Prosecutor, High Court of 1'elangana, at Hyderabad and another AND ...Pctitioncrs Respondents ORDER 'lhis Criminal Petition has been filed seekin to quash the proceedings in FIR No.300 of 2025, on the file ol ,trizarnabad VI Town Police Station, Nizamabad District, whereir he petitioners were anayed as accused Nos.l to 3, for the oflerr, es punishable under Section 318(a) ol'the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanir fua, 2023 (for short'BNS') and Sections 7 rlw 3(2)(c) ol he Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act'). 2

2. Heard Mr.G.Raghu, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.Ramachandra Reddy, Iearned Additional Public Prosecutor lbr respondent No. I .

3. The specific allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 3 is that they have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 29. I 1.2025 at about 09:00 hours, the petitioners rvere found in possession of92 bags of PDS rice totalling 36.45 quintals

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that without there being any complaint from any beneficiary, alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging the petitioners for prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations, even taken at their face value cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Further, this Court, in Crl.P.No.5709 of 2019, while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the offences alleged against the petitioners therein could not be continued and accordingly quashed the proceedings. The petitioners are also entitled to the same reiief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners- .,r' I I a

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor sul,r uts that as per prosecution, the offences said to have been cor r nitted by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Section 7 o1't rc EC Act and requested to pass appropriate orders

6. Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate t I z any person contravenes with the production, supply, distributi,r r and trade of essential commoditres, is punishable. As per the 1,r rsecution. the petitioners have procured PDS rice frorn the ber r flciaries alter supply from the dealer '7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.N t i221 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed thal "There is no ( 'erment indicating that the pctitioner ,n uny wuv deceptively induced the beneficiaries to parl with thesupplt ,, PDS rice or lhe benclciary enlntstc(l the PDS rice pttrthosed by tlt ' t vith tha petilioner und they d*honestly misappropriatcd or convt lt, 1 to their own use or used it in violation rtf a lau,ful directbn or cont\ . t. [n llrc absence of essentialfacbrs, ctn theJuce ofprosecution, lhi: ( ,turt -finds it to be a fit case lo exercise the jurtstliction undar Section .11 ofBNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance ofproceedings ageinst the petiti,rt, .is abuse ofprocess of law"

8. The facts and circumstances of the present ctrs : also similar to those in the above case and hence, this Court find it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 I' BNSS bv 4 applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in FIR No.300 of 2025, on the hle of Nizamabad VI 'Iown Police Station, Nizamabad District, against the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 3, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, il any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. MADHAVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER I To,

1. The ll Addl. Judicial Frrst Class Magistrate, Nizamabad 2. The Station House Officer, Vl Town P.S., Nizamabad 3. One CC to SRI GAJE RAGHU Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad (OUT) 5. Two CD Copies VSM/Sa c#- I I HIGH COURT DATED:0310212026 R THE S Tn C) .+ C) (,1 0 I FEB ZCi$ 'tt >: ORDER CRLP.No.1251 ot 2026 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ,$ 4\ \).t