Criminal Petition No. 2309 of 2024 · The High Court · 2025

Order

This Criminal Petition is hled with a prayer to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/ accused Nos. 1 and 2 in CC.No.503 of 2024 on the hle of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Boath, registered for the offences punishable uncler Section 272, 275 of BNS and Sections 7(1) read with 2O(2) of COTPA. I I

2. Heard Sri Soma Ravi Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1-State. Perused the record. t I

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the order dated 15.04.2024 irt Criminal Petition No.2309 of 2024.

4. lrarned Assistant Public Prosecutor also submitted that the issue in the present criminal petition is covered by the earlier order in the above criminal petition.

5. In view of the said representation and as the matter is squarely covered by the order in the above criminal petition, this criminal petition is allowed in terms of the'above said ord,:r. 2 adopting the reasoning contained therein. The proceedings against the petitioners / accused Nos.l and 2 in CC'No 503 of

2024 or the ltle of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Boath, are hereby quashed. Further, Officer/Investigating Officer is hereby directed to return the seized property on proper identi{ication and verification under the Station House due acknowledgment. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Criminal Petition shail a,lso stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I ECTION OFFICER To PR '1 . The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Boath. 2. The Station House Officer, Sirikonda Police Station, Adilabad District. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

4. Oire cc to sRl. soMA RAVI KIRAN REDDY, Advocate [oPUCl 5. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED: 2510212025 ORDER CRLP.No.2672 o12025 €r1 AT E (),( sq \\\ r$-h !: ')i l.\ '',."' 'l ;t L11 -_ rl ;:i' ..,,1 ',,-|, . ALLOWED ? l i I I I I i I I THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA cRIMINAL PETITION No.23O9 OF 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is frled under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.J to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.24 of 2021, on the file of the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 269, 27O, 272, 273 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the IPC), Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act) and Section 20 (2) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (for short 'the COTP Act).

2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioners is that on 27 'O3 .2O2O while police were in patrolling, they found the petitioners possessing, selling and purchasing the banned products vtz., gullka and ganja respectively, for which, the Police registered a case against the petitioners for the offences alleged against the petitioners are that Sections 188, 269, 27O, 272 and 273 of the IPC, Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act and Section 20 (2) of the COTP Act, respectively. Basing on the said complaint the Police registered the case in Crime No.53 of 2 s.Es,J CrLP.No.23O9 OF 2024 2O2O and after completion of investigation, they frled charge sheet and the same was numbered as S.C.No.24 of 2O2l on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

3. Heard Sri Y. Bala Murali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf ofthe respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are vague and did not attract any of the offence. Making his submission, he relied on the judgment of this Court vide order dated O5.O7.2O21 in Criminal Petition No.l52 of 2O2O, wherein this Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners and he further submitted that the present matter is also covered by that order. As such, he prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition.

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that he has no objection with regard to Sections 188, 269, 27O, 272, 273 of IPC and Section 20 (2) of COTP Act. The petitioners were also charged for the offence under Section Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDpS Act and he has prayed the Court that the trial has to be conducted for the offence punishable under NDPS Act. 3 srs,", crLP.No.23O9 oF 2024 REI,EUANT PROYTS'OIIS UNDER IPC: "788. Disobedience to order dulg promulgated by public seruant. - tuhoeuer, knouing tlnt, by an order promulgated bg a pubtic seruant laufullA empou.tered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain propetta in his possessioz or under his management, disobeys such directiory shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annogance or injury, or risk of obstntction, annogance or injury, to anA person laufullg employed, be puni.shed uith simple impisonment for a term uhich mag ertend to one month or u.rith fine uhich may ertend to tu.to hundred rupees, or uith both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or so.fetA, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affrog, shall be punished uith impisonment of either desciption for a term uhich mag extend to six months, or uith fine ulhich maA ertend to one thousand rupees, or uith both. Erylanation: It i.s not necessdry that the offender slnuld intend to produce hnrm, or contemplate his disobedience as likelg to produce hnrm. It is sufficient that h.e knolrs of th.e order u.thich he disobegs, and that his disobedience produces, or is likelg to produce, hanrn. Illustration: An order i.s promulgated by a public seruant laufully empotuered to promulgate such order, directing tluzt a religious procession slull not pass doutn a certain street. A knounnglg disobeys the order, and th-erebg causes danger of iot. A has commilted the offence defined in this section." "269. Negligent act likelg to spread infection of disease dangerous to life- - Wltoeuer unlaufully or negligentlg does any act uhich is, and uhich he knous or hl;'s reason to belieue to be, likelg to spread ttle infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punislwd ttith imprisonment of either desciption for a tenn u.thich mog extend to six month,s, or with fine, or tuith botL" 27O. Malignant act likelg to spread infection of disease dangerous to life- - Whaeuer malignantlg does any act uthich is, and- u-thich he knouts or has reason to belieue to be, likelg to spread the infection of dng disease dangerous to life, shnll be punished uith impisonment of either d.escription for a term uhicll maA ertend to tuo Aears, or uith fine, or uith both."

272. Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale.-Whoeuer adulterates ang article of food or dink, so as fo make such article noious as food- or dink, intending to sell such article as food or drink, or 4 srs,J crLP.No.23O9 OF 2024 knouing it to be likelg that the same will be sold. as food or dink, shntl be punished uith impisonment of either desciption for a term uhich mag ertend to six months, or uith fine ulhich mog ertend to one thousand rupees, or u.rith both." "273. Sale of noxtous food or dink.- Wlneuer sells, or offers or eq)oses for sale, as food or dink, any article uhich has been rendered or has beame noiou, or i^s in a state unfit for food or dink, knouing or hautng rea.son to belieue that the same is nonxious as food or dink, shatl be punished uith impisonment of either desciption for a tenn which mag extend to six months, or uith fine uhich mag ertend to one thousand tupees, or urith both." RELEVANT PROWSIO]\TS UNDER COTP ACT,

20. Punishment for failure to giue specified uanning and niatine and tar contents.- (21 Ang person u.tho sells or distibutes cigarettes or tobacco products tlhich do not contain uither on the package or on their label, the specified uarning and the nicotine and tar contents shall in case of first conuiction be punishable uith impisonment for a term, uhich mdg ertend to one gear, or uith fine which maA extend to one thousa,nd rupees, or u-)ith both, and, for the second or subsequent conuiction, uith impisonment for a terrn uhich mag ertend. to ttDo gears and uith fine uhich may ertend to three th.Dusand tupees."

6. The lis involved in the present petition is no more res integra. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Chidurala Shgam"subd.er as. State ol Telanganar had an occasion to deal with the issues involved in the present criminal petition. After referring to various provisions of IPC, COTP Act and also the principle laid down by the Apex Court and other High Courts in several judgments, the learned Single Judge had framed the issues, which are as under: t crl.P.No.3731 0f 2018 & batch, decide d on 27 .08.201.8 5 srs,J CiLP.No.23O9 OE 2024 "1) Whether the respondent/ Sub-Inspector of Police, is competent to investigate into the offence punishable under Sections 54 and 59(1) of FSS Act? 2) Whether the petitioners in all the petitions are found committing any act with malicious intention, with knowledge and reason to believe that such act likely to spread the infection of aly disease dalgerous to life? And whether the petitioners selling or offering or exposing for sale as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious or is in a state unfrt for food or drink or reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink? If so, are they liable to be proceeded for the offence punishable under Sections 27O atd 273 lPC.?"

7. In the very same judgment, the learned Single Judge further held that chewing tobacco and khaini are not the food' within the definition of Section 3 (i) of the FSS Act and the malufacture, sale or exposing for sale of tobacco etc., is governed by the provisions of COTP Act, but not by FSS Act arrd so also the provisions of IPC. The respondents-Police are incompetent to investigate the offence punishable under Sections - 54 and 59 (1) of the FSS Act and allegations in the charge sheet coupled with the statements do not disclose the commission of the offence punishable under Section - 273 of IPC since transportation of noxious food is not included under Section 273 of lPC. The act done by the accused therein i.e., transportation of khaini and chewing tobacco though dangerous to human life, it would not spread or infect or cause any disease on 6 srs,J CrLP.No.23O9 Ot 2024 account of transportation and if those products are consumed by human being, it would certainly cause damage to the health. Therefore, transportation of khaini or chewing tobacco by itself is not an offence under Section - 27O of IPC. Pan Masala is not a tobacco product to fall within the purview of COTP Act. Therefore, the provisions of the COTP Act have no application, thereby registration of crime on the ground of violation of Sections - 7 (l) (2) (3) (5) and Section 26 of COTP Act is an illegality. The learned Single Judge further held that registration of cases for the offence under Section - 20 (2) read with 7 (2) of COTP Act is illegal. With the said findings, the leamed Single Judge has quashed the crimes and calendar cases in the said judgment.

8. ln Sri Jaganath Enterprises Eluru Vasandhi Tripati Rao as. The State of Andhra Pradesh2, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati had also an occasion to deal with the said issue. After referring to the contention of the respective parties therein, various provisions of IPC, FSS Act, COTP Act and relying on the principle laid down in Anand Ro;md,hani Chaurasia3, Joseph Kurian us. Sf,ate of Keralaa, Sagged. Hassan Sagged Subhans, M/s. Pepslco India Holdings Pfi) ' zozo (r) lu (ca.) 21s (ApHc) t 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1857 o tggs (t) sc.r zzz ' zors arn lscy sa+a 7 sr(s,J CrLP.t{o.23O9 O, 2024 Ltd., ts. State of II.P.6, SanJag Anjag Stores as. Union of IndiaT, Boop Singh Tyagi as. States, State of llaryana vs. Bhajan LaP and Chldurala Shyannsubder (Supra l), the learned Single Judge has quashed the FlRs/Calendar Cases. The learned Single Judge referring to the law laid down in Chidurala Shgannsubder (Supra 1) held that despite the said authoritative pronouncement of law, status quo continues. The said judgment attained frnality. Even then, the police are registering cases against accused on the very same allegations for the very same olfences.

9. Referring to the provisions of Sections - 188, 269, 27O, 272 and 273 of IPC, the learned Judge in Sri Jaganath Enterprises held that the offences registered under the said Sections are not maintainable. It further held that the provisions of the COTP Act can only be pressed into service in the limited circumstances only where there is violation of Sections - 4, 5, 6,7 and l0 of the COTP Act. By referring to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal and M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd., the learned Single Judge has quashed the proceedings in various crimes / calendar cases. 6 2011 (2) crimes 250 7 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 16323 ' zooz crl.t.l . 2872 ' 1992 supp (1) scc 335 8 srs,J CTLP.I{o.2309 OP 2024

10. Another learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in V.Nagesutara Rao us. State of Andhra Pradeshro had also an occasion to deal with the said issue and agreed with the principle laid down in Chldurala Shgamsubder (Supra l).

11. ln Sayyed lfcssan Sagged Subhan (Supra 5), the Apex Court while dealing with legality of the order passed by the Bombay High Court in a batch of criminal writ petitions and criminal applications, which were frled challenging the registration of FIRs for the offences under Sections - 188, 272,273 and 328 of IPC and Sections - 26 and 30 of FSS Act where there is an allegation of transportation and sale of Gutka/Pan Masala etc., held that the judgment of Bombay High Court is contrary to the provisions of the Act and law laid down by it. With the said finding, the Apex Court remitted the matter to the Bombay High Court for fresh consideration on the issue that whether the aforesaid offences are made out in the FIRs, which are subject matter of the cases pending before the Bombay High Court.

12. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of law in the aforesaid judgments, as discussed above, coming to the facts of the cases on hand, the allegations against the accused in respective 10 2o2o supreme (AP) 348 9 srgJ C:rl*-Ito- 2309 Or 2024 cases are transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of banned products viz., respectively. ln Chidurala Shgann',subder (Supra 1), the learned Single Judge observed that transportation of chewing tobacco or khaini or pan masala do not constitute an offence punishable under Section - 27O of IPC arrd that marrufacturing of pan masala is not included in Section 273 of lPC and, therefore, the same is not an offence since it is not a noxious food. The learned Single Judge has further observed in the said judgment which is as under: "... The act done bg the Petitioners i.e., transportation of khaini and cheuing tobacco tltough dangerous of human tife, it uould not spread or infect or casue qnA disease on account of transportatton and if those prod cts are consumed by human being, it tttould certainlg cause damage to the health. Therefore, transportation of kLnini or cheuing tobacco is not by itself is not an offence under Section - 270 of IPC and it utould fall uithin Section 27O of IPC."

13. Section - 272 of IPC makes punishable an offence by a person, who adulterates any article of food or drink. Therefore, the said section would only come into play or drink is adulterated. There is no defrnition of 'adulteration' in IPC. The defrnition 'adulterant' is found in the provisions of the FSS Act. Section - 3 (1) (a) of the FSS Act deals with 'adulteralt' which means a material which could make the food' unsafe or sub-standard or mis-branded. According to Section - 272 of IPC, if a material is used to make the food unsafe/ sub-standard or mis-branded, then 10 sxqJ CrLP.Ilo-23O9 OF 2024 only the offence would be attracted. Whereas, as discussed supra, the allegation in the present batch of cases is with regard to transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of banned products viz., tobacco / tambaku / gutk a / kt,atni / zar da / p an masala etc., respectively. Therefore, according to this Court, the said allegation does not fa-ll within the ambit of Section - 272 of IPC. Therefore, I agree with the principle laid down by the learned Single Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chidurala Shgannsubd.er (Supra 1), Sri Jaganath Enterprises (Supra 2) and V.Nagesu)ara Roo (Supra 10).

14. In Joseph Kuriqn (Supra 4), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for Section 272 - IPC to be attracted, the following should be present. (1) That the article involved was food and drink meant to be consumed by live persons; (2) that the accused adulterated it and the adulteration rendered it noious as a food or drink'; (3) that the accused knew at the time of adulteration that he would sell the article as food or drink and knew that such article cannot be sold as food or drink. The Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that the offence is completed on the introduction of the adulterant. Adulterant' would mean that a material which is mixed to make the Tood' unsafe or drink unsafe. In the present case on hand, tobacco is not a food or drink and what is stated to be mixed in it is not clearly established by any cogent material as an 'adulterant' 11 srs,J CrLP.r{o,23O9 OF 2024 for the offence under Section - 272 of IPC to be pressed into servlce

15. Section - 273 of IPC deals with sale of a noxious food or drink, and as per which, whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noious, or is in a state unfit for drink, knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment specified therein. Therefore, if a person offers for sale a 'food or drink" any article which has become noxious or is in a state of unfit for "food or drink". Thus, the said section would apply, when an article which has become noxious or which has been rendered noxious. It also applies to food or drink only. As held in Sri jaganath Enterprises, the word hoxious' is not defined in IPC or in FSS Act. As per the dictionary meaning, the word hoxious' is harmful, deleterious, injurious, poisonous etc. As stated above, the allegation in the criminal petition is with regard to transportation, possession, storage, sale purchase of banned products tobacco/tambaku/gutka/khatni/zarda/pan masala v'tz. ' etc', respectively. Therefore, according to this Court, the contents of the complaint/charge sheet lacks the ingredients of Section - 273 of IPC. t2 srs,J Crt. P. I,Io.2 3 09 Or 2 O24

16. As far as Section - 188 of IPC is concerned, as per the settled law on the subject, before an accused is charged, there must be; an order duly promulgated by the public servant; the public servant must have the lawful authority to promulgate the order; the person flouting the same should have knowledge about the order directing him to abstain from the act; he must disobey the said order with the knowledge; and such disobedience of the duly promulgated order should cause a danger to the human life etc. In Boop Singh flagr a Division bench of Allahabad High Court held that right to promulgate the ordinance/order is also an issue which is being raised, because under the FSS Act, the Commissioner of Food Safety alone has the authority to pass the orders only if the article of Tood' can causes danger or is injurious to health.

17. In lV.?. Rama Rao as. The State otA.P., rep bg Public Prosecutorrr while dealing with the offences under Sections - 188 and 283 of IPC, the learned Single Judge of the combined High Coirrt of Andhra Pradesh held as under: "5) Euen if the allegation that the petitioner conducted public meetings at three road. junctions contrary to the permission accorded for conducting of a pubtic meettng onlg at one specifi.ed ptace is true, such a direction under Section 3O of the Police Act, 1861 auld haue been giuen onlg bg the Superintendent or the Assistant Supeintendent of 11 Criminal Petition No.5323 of 2009, decided on 17.09.2009 13 SKqJ C:''LP-,Jo.23O9 OF 2024 Police of the Distnct but not bg any of their subordinates. If such a permission is granted. under Section 3O of the Police Act, 1861 and is uiolated, Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Ciminal Procedure mandates that the complaint in this regard has to be made bg the public seruant concenled or som€ oth.er person to uhom such a pubtic seraant is administratiuelg subordinote to enable anA Court to take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In the Present case, the charge sheet uas filed by the Sub InsPector of Police, uho could not haue been the authoity to grant permission for the public meeting and therefore, the complaint/ charge steet is in uiolatton of tlrc mandatory prouision of Sectton 195 (1) 9a) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. Tlnt dpart, the offence alleged to h.aue been committed under Sedion 283 of the Indian Penal Code bg the petitioners and others is obuiouslg in consequence to the alleged offence under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code and is not an independent of tlle same. Euen otherTuise, the conduce of pubtic meetirtg at three road junctions or obstruction to the tralfrc could not haue been considered as causing any danger or injury to any person. In so far as the obstruction in ang public uay is concerned, uhich can c,bo be couered by Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge sheet cites onlg one u.titness to speak about the traffic jam caused by ttle road shott. But, uhen the conduct of the public meeting at least at one place hns been pemitted and if the gathering for tlwt public meeting resulted in ang inanuenience bg utag of obstructing tlrc traJrtc, the same cannot be con-sidered. to be uith necessary guiltg mens rea to construe tlg eistence of an offence punislnble under Indian Penal Code. Under the cira ]juzst(j,nces, none oJ the offerrces alleged can be said to haue ang reasonable basis and in ang uieut, the contplaint/ charge sheet being in uiolation of Seaion 195 (1) (a) of Code of Ciminal procedure, has to fail. 7. As the complaint ho-s failed due to its unsustainabilitg, the proceedings in their entirely haue to fail, though the 7n acansed alone approached this Court by utay of this Ciminal Petition."

18. In Thota Chandra Sekhar as. The state of Andhra Pradesl4 through S.It O., P.S. Eluttt Rutal, West Goda tari 74 srs,J CrLP.No.23O9 OF 2024 Dlstrictl2, wherein by relying on various judgment including JV. ?. Rama Rao (Supra 11) and also the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Bhojan LaI (Supra 9) more particularly, guideline No.6, which says that where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceedings is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing eflicacious remedy to redress the grievance of the party, it was held that the proceedings in the said C.C were quashed by exercising power under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. It was also further held that the proceedings shall not be continued due to technical defect of obtaining prior permission under Section - 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. and taking cogrrizance on the complaint hled by V.R.O and it is against the purport of Section - 195 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C.

19. With regard to the offences under COTP Act, it is relevant to mention the objects and the reasons of the said Act itself clearly state that the act is meant to prohibit the advertisement of, and to provide for the regulation of trade and commerce in, and production, supply and distribution of, cigarettes and other tobacco products and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. A reading of the said objects of the said Act would reveal '2 Criminal Petition No.15248 of 2016, decided on 26.10.2016 t5 srqJ CrLP.rb.23O9 OF 2024 that a total ban of tobacco products was not envisaged by the said Act. The Parliament merely felt it expedient to control the advertisement and sale of tobacco products. As noted earlier in the order, Section - 3 (p) of the COTP Act and the schedule therein define tobacco products. Pan Masala, gutkha and chewing tobacco are included in the delinition of tobacco products. Section - 5 of the COTP Act deals with prohibition of advertisement of cigarette ald other tobacco products only. No person, who is engaged in the production, supply or distribution of cigarettes or other products shall advertise the same. Similarty, no person having the control over a medium can advertise cigarettes or tobacco products, and no person shall be part of any advertisement.

20. Section - 20 of COTP Act deals with punishment for failure to give specified warning and nicotine and tar contents. But, in the complaints/charge sheets, there is no allegation against the petitioners that they were carrying on trade or commerce in contraband or any other tobacco products without label and specified warning on the said products. In view of the same, the contents of the complaints/charge sheets lack the ingredients of Section 20 (21 of the COTP Act. Even there is no allegation that the seized products do not contain labels with statutory warning. Thus, registering the crimes for the said offence against the petitioners is not only contrary to Section - 20 (21 of COTP Act, but 16 srs,., CrLP.No.2309 OF 2024 also contrary to the principle laid down in Chidurala Shgamsubd.er. In view of the same, the offence under Section 2O (2) of COTP Act is also liable to be quashed against the petitioners. I once again reiterate that I agree with the principle laid down by the learned Single Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chidurala Shyamsubder, Sri Jaganath Enterprises and V. Nageswara Rao.

21. In view of the above said discussion, according to this Court, transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of tobacco products are not totally banned in the State of Telangana and also in the Country. Therefore, it cannot be said that Sections - 188, 269,27O,272 ar:d 273 of the IPC and Section 20 (2) ot COTP Act are attracted to the present case. Insofar as the offence under Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act, the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted.

22. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed in part and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.l and 2 in S.C.No.24 of 2O2L, on the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, file of registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 269, 27O, 272 and 273 of the IPC and Section 20 (21 of the COTP Act only are hereby quashed while permitting the prosecution to 77 sxs,J CrLP.1,b.23O9 Ot 2024 proceed further against the petitioners/ accused Nos.l and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. Date:L5.O4.2024 sA1 K. SUJANA, J [ 3385 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K, SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2672 oF 2025 Between:

1. ShaikAshraf, S/o Shaik Shabeer, Age.52 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.3-48, Sirikonda Village and Mandal, Adilabad District.

2. Mohammad Abrar, S/o. MD Abbas, Age. 34 years, Occ: Business, Rio H.No.7-7- 66/2, Vidya nagar, Adilabad, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1 & 2 AND The state of Telangana, Through s.H.o. sirikonda Police station, Adilabad District. Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceeding against the Petitioners/accused in C C. No. 503 of 2024 On the file of Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Boath. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in c.c. No. 503 of 2024 On the file of Hon'ble Judicial First class Magistrate, at Boath, including appearance of the petitioners, during pending disposal of the above criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri soMA RAVI KIRAN REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER - _ ,-EF*.?:!E!

1.. - @tz ,, THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2672 of 2or25 ORAL ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 in CC.No.503 of 2024 on the file of Judicial Magistrare of First Class, Boath, registered for the offences punishable under Section 272, 275 of BNS and Sections 7(l) read with 20(2) of COTPA. I I

2. Heard Sri Soma Ravi Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Assistant public prosecutor for respondent No. 1-State. Perused the record. I I

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the order dated 15.04.2 O24 in Criminal Petition No.2309 of 2024.

4. Learned Assistarit Public Prosecutor also submitted that the issue in the present criminal petition is covered by the earlier order in the above criminal petition.

5. In view- of the said representation and as the matter is squarely covered by the order in the above criminal petition, this criminal petition is allowed in terms of thd.above said order, z adopting the reasoning contained therein' The proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 in CC'No'503 of 2A24 on the hle of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Boath, are the Station House hereby quashed. Further, Officer/Investigating Offrcer is hereby directed to return the seized property on proper identihcation and verification under due acknowledgment. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Criminal Petition shali also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I SECTION OFFICER To PR

1. The Judicial First Class Magiskate at Boath. 2. The Station House Officer, Sirikonda Police Station, Adilabad District' 3. two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 4 Ohe cc to sRl. souR Rnvt KIRAN REDDY, Advocate [oPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad (OUT) HIGH COURT DATED: 2510212025 ORDER CRLP.No.2672 o12025 ALLOWED i I i i I 1