Shaik lVoiz Uddin v. Dharpally

2 Sri. Rathod Ravi Kumar, S/o. Late Chandraiah, Occ. Deputy Tahasildar (CS) Dharpally, Nrzamabad District. Pincode. 503165. .....RESPON DENTS/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the IVemorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the impugned proceedings in C C .No. 664 of 2024, on the file of the Vth Additional Judicial I\4agistrate of First class at Nizamabad against the Petitioner/Accused l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings in C.C. No.664 of 2024, on the file of the Vth Additional Judicial I\,4agistrate of First CIass at Nizamabad., including appearance and attendance of the petitioner/Accused, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri GAJE RAGHU ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the SRI tV .RA|VIACHANDRA REDDy, Additionat Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of None Appeared for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER INTHB HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF T AT HYDERABAD 'LANGANA 'l'tlI,l HONOURT\BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREll t iVz\S RAO CRINIINAI, PETITION No.l297 of 2l 26 Datc: 0+.02.2026. Betvu, een: Shaik Moiz Uddin AND ':titioner The Statc ol -lclangana, Ilep. b1 its I'Lrblic Prosecutor, Lligh Court of l-elansana and another Respondents ORDER This CriminaL Petition has been filed seekr L; to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.664 of 2024, on the fllt cf lealneC V Additional .ludicial Magistrate ol First Class, Nizr r. rbad, u hcrcin the petirioner rvas arrayed as accused, for the offerr r:s punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (li: shorl 'lPC), Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 1or short 'EC Act').

#2. Heard Mr.G.Raghu, learned counsel for the tetitioner and Mr.M.Ramachandra Reddy, leamed Additional PuL ic prosecutor tbr respondent No. I r '-i 2

#3. The specific alle-eation against the pctitioner/accuse d is that he has procured PDS rice lrom the benefrcranes at cheaper rate to sell the saine for prot-rt and on 14. 10.2023 at about 0 j:00 hours. the petitioneL i,r,'as lbund in po.ssession ol 19.70 qLrintals of pr)S rice

#1. Leamed counsel for the Lretitioner would submit that r.vithout there bcing any complaint tiom any beneflciary, alleging that rhe flce \.vas procured deceptively or r.r,ith a criminal intent and chargin_r the petitioner fbr prosccution is untenable and improper fhe allegations, even taken at l'ris lace value cannot be sustained aqainst the petitioner. Furllier', this Cou11, in Crl.P.No.5709 ol 20 I9, while considering the same situation, categorrcally obsencd that the of-tences alleged against thc petitioncrs thercrn could not he continued and accordingly quashed the proceedings. 1'he petitioner is also entitled to the samc relief anci hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitiorer

#5. The learrred Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per prosecution, the offences said to have been committed by the petitioner is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the EC Act and requested to pass appropriate L)rders 3 (r. Section T of the EC Aci conten'rplate th t an1' per son contrave ncs \vitir the production, suppty, distributii'r ancl tradc of essential comrrodities, is punishablc. As per thc fr )r;ecutioll. the pctitioncr has procured PDS ricc ll-om the ben: i:iaries a lier supp[1, h'om the dealer. I . A Coordrnate Bench o1' this Court in Crl.P.N I 1221 o12025 has considered thc identical facts ar-rd obsen ed that 'll:,'rL' i: n. d\crl ctlt i r/icttlirtg thdt tlrc petitiorLcr t .,/. r : r)/ir'('1r ittlut:.:il tltt ltt:ntficitrit': lt) Porl ritll thc su111 I : or iht, lttttcli.tLttt crltustul thc PDS rLce ptrrclusetl by '1,:: !L!iii.)11.,t trrril tlrrv di:hctnt.\tl) nlisapp.oprialed or convc t a\,.u ttic .)t tt'i:il it irt t tlutron ofu l$t.ful direction or cott l tL[..sittca ol i::rcitlitll .fitttot\ on tltc fircL: of pro.seution, thi. ir n, ht'o fir to;e nt eli<:rci.sc tltc jtrrisrliction under Section : ) It))-l lltu.., crtrttittuctrtcc Ltl proccerlLngs ogoinsl the pel :(,'1 of ptttt:t:: of ittr" .DD5 r'ir', r.urt find.: I 'rl /lA'.S.t.

#8. The lacts and circulnstances of the present citr c also sirlltlar to those in the above case and hence, this Court firc r it to be a fit czrse to excrclse jurisdictron under Section 528 r1' BNSS by applying thc same analogy and to quash the proc,r clings against the petitioner herein

#9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is all: i ed and the proceedings IN C.C.No.664 ot 2024, on the file rl learned V i '4 4 Additional Judicial Magistrate of Fir.st Class, Nizamabad, against the pctitioner/accnsed, are hereby quashed. Pending rriscellaneous application.s, il any, shall stand closed, SD/- T.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /iTRUE COPY// i c CTION OFFICER To, 1' The Vth Addltronal .lrrdicial 1\rlagistrate ot I irst Class at Nizamabad Distr jcr 1 ! -li? i3'3 #:'3??J ii",*f fj,g:,#: ;,x n o r, a rp a r-r/ r.r i)Ii,i [,"i b"i ' - t'ot"tutor' Hrsh c;;;i;; tiJ'strt" or retansana ar t,.i t " " r!lo'.."r"0'rl"r5t,?',t 5 Two CD Copies' VI\4i PSL HIGH COURT DATED:O41O212026 ORDER CRLP.No.1297 of 2026 t { o U . -=-=:=::\ i tr Slar] ltlil | 10tr a t * * ,D,r ir'".y, ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION /4,td\ 4 \_(v I :{- I1 q b a"