The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C-No.12337 of 2O24 on the file of the l"t Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad, for the offences Punishable U/s 125of BNS and 20(3) of COTP Act. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings against the petitioner's including appearance of the .Petitioners/ Accused No's 1 to 2 here in in C.C.No.12337 ol 2024 on the file of the 'l't Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad, Pending disposal of CRLP 1891 of 2025, on the file of the High Court. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Shaik Muhammed Abed, Advocate for the Petitioners and the of Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Addl Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court nra& the fiollorirg: ORDER / THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1891 of 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos l and 2 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.12337 of 2024 on the file of :he learned I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad. l'he offences alleged against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are under Sections 125 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short 'BNS') and 20(2) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (for s6e1 'COTPA')

02. lleard Sri Shaik fVluhammed, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State 03 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are nothrng to do with the alleged offences. The allegations Ieveled against the petitioners do not attract the required ingredients to constitute the alleged offences under Sections 125 of the BNS and 20(2) ot the COTPA. Therefore, the continuation rf the criminal proceedings against the petitioners- accused Nos 1 and 2 amounts to abuse of process of law, hence, l',! 2 prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2.

04. On the other hand, learned Additional public Prosecutor for the state submitted that the petitioners have arso been charged with the offences under Sections 125 of the BNS and 20(2) of the COTpA and the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioners can only be known after conducting full-fledged trial, and hence, he prayed to dismiss this petition. -t

05. As seen from the contents of the charge sheet, the allegations levelled against the petitioners_accused Nos.1 and 2 are that while they were carrying Hookah set i.e. with one hookah pot, one hookah pipe, one hookah flavour packet, one foil paper and three coals in the rented car bearing No. TS 0g He 3482, dashed the divider and the said items of hookah fell out of the

06. ln the facts and circumstances of the case, it is relevant to extract Sections 125 of BNS as well as 20(2) of the COTPA: "Section 125 of BNS: Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human tife or the personal 1 3 safety ctf others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either clescription for a term which may extertd to three months or with fine which may extend to two thousand five hundred rupees, or with both, but - (a) where huft is caused, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both; (b) whe're grievous hurt is caused, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may ertend to three years, or with fine t lhich may extend ro ten thousand rupees, or with both. Section 20(2) ot the COTPA: Any person who sells or distribules cigarettes or tobacco products which do not contain either on the package or on their label, the specifieC warning and the nicotine and tar contenfs sha// in the case of first conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to one year, or with Fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both, and, for the second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment for a term which may extend io two years and with fine which ma.y extend to th ree th ou sand ru pees."

07. To constitute the offence under Section 125 of the BNS, the acts of the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be in rash and negligent manner endangering human life or personal safety of others. As seen from the contents of the charge sheet, there is no sLtrlh rash or negligent act endangering human life or t1 4 the personal safety of others, is made out against the petitioners_ accused Nos.'1 and 2. Thus, the offence under Section 125 of the BNS is liable to be quashed against the petitioners_accused Nos.1 and 2

08. ln so far as the offence under Section 20(2) of the COTPA is concerned, to constitute this offence, there shall be allegation of selling or distributing cigarettes or tobacco products which do not contain either on the package or on their label, the specified warning and the nicotine and tar contents. The allegation against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 is that they were carrying Hookah set i.e. with one hookah pot, one hookah pipe, one hookah flavour packet, one foil paper and three coals. The Section 20 of the COTp Act deals with punishment for failure to give specified warning and nicotine and tar contents. As stated above, the allegation againsl the petitioners is that they were carrying Hookah set i.e. with one hookah pot, one hookah pipe, one hookah flavour packet, one foil paper and.three coals. The petitioners are neither trader, nor supplieridistributor of cigarettes or any other tobacco products. There is no allegation in the charge sheet against the petitioners that they are carrying on the trade or commence in contraband or any other tobacco products without label and specified warning on the said t*-# 5 products. ln the entire charge sheet, there is no allegation that the said products do not contain the labels as well as statutory warning. ln olher words, there is no mention of tobacco products in the charge sheet. Hence, the allegations levelled in the charge sheet do not constitute the offence under Section 20(2) of the COTPA. Therefore, registering the crime for the said alleged offence against the petitioners is also contrary to Section - 20 (2) of COTP Act Thus, the offence under Section - 2Ct (2) of COTp Act is also liable to be quashed against the petitioners.

09. ln view of the above facts and circuntstances of the case, the c,rntinuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.'1 and 2 amounts to abuse of process of law, therefore the same are liable to be quashed.

10. liccordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No 12337 of 2024 on the file of the learned l Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. As a s;equel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed Sd/- L. LAKSHMI BABU //TRUECOPY// \ F To, The 1't Addl chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad The Station H,:use Offrcer, *Efd Police Station, HY 1 z derabad. ':"@

3. One CC to Sri Shaik Muhammed Abed, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD copies. BJLB/ h o \ *, \t u I I / HIGH COURT DAIED:171O212025 ORDER CRLP.No.1891 of2025 '-..< .-: .J ? -:) 04 A/rt zil: I t oFS .ur..ut!1./' =--:=:;2- CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED .r \ r'