Akula Ajaya v. The State of Telangana, Telangana at Hyderabad, It/lahabubabad District

rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Throtigh The SHO Nellikudur police station, ..RESPONDENT'COMPLAINANT 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 in CC No.704 of 2024 on the file the Court Of Judicial First Class Magistrate At Thorrur, Mahabubabad District, against the Petitioner/A2. t.A. F 2026 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 grant stay of all further proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.2 in CC. No. 704 of 2024 on the file the Court Of Judicial First Class Magistrate At Thorrur, Mahabubabad District till the disposal of the Main Quash Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Laxmaiah Kanchani, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER AT HYDERABAD THE TIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMTN PETITION No.2 Date;27 .02.2026. of2026 Between. Akula Aiaya Krishna @ Akula Ajay, S/o. Ramu @ Ramulu AND ...Petitioner The Statr: of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Corrt of Telangana at Hyderabad, Through the SHO Nellikudur Police Srarion, Mahabutrabad District and another ORDER ...Respondents This Criminal Petition is filed seeking by the petitione:/accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings in c.c.No.i'O4 of 2024, on the file of learned Judicial First class Magistra:e, Thorrur. 2- Heard Mr.Laxmaiah Kanchani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

#3. Th: specific allegation against the petitioner/accused No.2 is that he he.s procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 10.08.202 4, the petitioner was found in possession of 35 quintals of pDS rice. \ 2

#4. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner for prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations, even taken at his face value cannot be sustained against the petitioner. 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 petitioner is also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

#5. The learned 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 orders.

#6. Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioner has procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer. i "liiL r,(:ii i: ". :ml' u'{if+' 3 7 A Coordinate Bench of this Courr in Crl.p.No.7Z27 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that: "T'he"e is no averment indicating that the petitioner in any way deceptilts[y induced the beneficiuries to part with the supptied pDS rice or th,: beneficiary entntstet{ the PDS rice pw-cha.sed by rhem with the petitbner and they dishonestly misappropriuted or convertecl to their own use orused it in violatictn r2[a lavuful direction or contract. In the abser,'ce of cssentialfactors, on theface of proseuttion, this Courtfinds it to t'e afit cuse to exercise the jurisdiction under section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continttance of proceedings against the petitioner is abttse ofprc, cess of luw".

#8. Th,: 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 rlxercise jurisdiction under section 528 of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitic'ner herein. 9- Acr:ordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in c.c.No.704 of 2024, on the fire of the leamed Judicial First class Magistrate, Thomrr, against the petitionen'accused No.2, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To,

#1. The Judicial First Class lVlagistrate at Thorrur 2' The station House officer, Nellikudur poticeffiiion, Mahabubabad District .l I II ,,..,..-,. .J} ':l'r"-i;+/ 'j.S ,ri '

#3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

#4. One CC to Sri Laxmaiah KanchaniAdvocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD CoPies vrltPsr- w" \ \ ,.. .i t,M{u ",i$* E ofJ 0 5 ilAB 2026 z c) .L * a . .l-r -..i."- t / HIGH COL'RT DATED i 2'710212026 ORDER CRLP.No,2772 of 2026 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 4 1