Mudavath Prashanth & Ors. v. The State of Telanga

The State of Telangana, Rep. by the public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

#2. G. Shiva Reddy, S/o. Not Known to Inspector of police, O/o. Moinabad Ranga Reddy District. Petitioners, Age PS, Cyberabad Major, Occ. Sub- Commissionerate, ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be preased to quash the proceedings in cc.No.451/2025 on the fire of the rAdditionar Junior civir Judge-cum- xrr Addr. Judiciar Magistrate of First crass at Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District LA. NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under section 52g of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the [\rlemorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be preased to stay all further proceedings incruding appearance of the. petitioners in cc No.45112025 on the fire of the r Additionar Junior civir Judge-cum-Xil Addr. Judicial t\4agistrate of First class at Rajendra Nagar, Ranga ReJ ly District during the pendency of Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Merr >randum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Srr I ANIMI REDDY , Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veerama I a Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf ofthe Respondent No.1 . The Court made the following ORDER : I t *, E B f' Ee. IN THE HIGTI COURT FORTHE STATE OFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.2620 of 2026 Daae:25.02.2026 Between: Mudavath Prashanth and another AND ...Petitioners The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad and another ..Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.451 of 2025, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Xll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District

#2. Heard Mr,P.Animi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. I .

#3. The specific allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos.l and 2 is that they have procured PDS rice from the bqneficiaries at '..vt_ id!.i 2 cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 10.( 5.2024 at abolt l9:30 hours, the petitioners were found in possess on of 500 bags of PDS rice.

#4. Lcarred counsel for the petitioners rvo -r d submit that without there being any complaint from any ben,: iciary, alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a cri ainal intent and charging the petitioners for prosecution is untenat I : and improper. 'fhe allegations, even taken at their face value carr ot be sustained against the petitioners. Further, this Court, in (l 1.P.No.5709 of 20 19, while considering the same situation, cate{.ro ically obscrved that the offences alleged against the petitioners ther rin could not be continued and accordingly quashed the prr:eedings. The petitioncrs are also entitled to the same relief and rence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

#5. '[he learned Additional Public Prosecutor srrl mits that as per prosecution, the offences said to have been ct,r rmitted bv the petitioners is cheating and violation of Section 7 rf the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (forshort'EC Act') 6n( ', que5ted to pass appropriate orders.

#6. Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate r Lat any person contravenes with the production, supply, distribur tn and trade of I I I 3 essential commodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS rice from the benef, rciaries alter supply from the dealer. l. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.l227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that: "There is no averment indicating that the petitioner in any wqy deceptively induced the beneficiaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or the bene.ficiary entrusted the PDS rice purchased by them with the pelitioner and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violation ofa lav'ful directi<tn or contract. ln the ubsence of essential factors, on the fdce of prosecution, this Court finds it to be a rtt case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. 'lhus, continuance ofproceedings aguinst the petitioner i_s abuse of procas-s of law".

#8. The facts and circumstances 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 by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein.

#9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.451 of 2025, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Xll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, againsr the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and2, arc hereby quashed 4 Pending miscellaneous applications, if at r, shall stand closed To, SD/- A :,REENIVASA REDDY ASS ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER firit Cra.t at Raiendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District' l.ThelAdditionalJuniorCivilJudge-cum-XllAdditiorilJudicialMagistrateof 2. The Station House Officer ' ttltoinaUaO Police Station' : anga Reddy District' 3. Two CCS to Addl Public Prosecutor, High Court for he State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

#4. One CC to SRI P ANIMI REDDY' Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies Kul/PSt. YA-- HIGH COURT DATED: 2510212026 q J o I 9fATE oF L a / 2 o * i ttuq \ rs& I }ESP rs ORDER CRL.PETITION No.2620 ot 2026 ALLOWING THE CRL.PETITION .u{"A

#4. X"..