The High Court · 2025

[\/adanapur, Wanaparthy District, High Court of State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

2. The Station House Officer, Through Police Station Madanapur, Wanaparthy District

3. The Deputy Tahsildar, (civil supplies), TSCSCL, Wanaparthy, Office at D. No. 25, Ground Floor, lntegrated District Officer Complex, Wanaparthy - 509 103. ...RespondenUDe facto Complainant I 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 call for the records in the F.l.R No. 54 of 2025 daled 2610312025 on the file of the Police Station Madanapur, Wanaparthy District against the Petitioner and quash the same- l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C 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 including the anest of the Petitioner in relation to Crime F.l.R No. 54 oI 2O25 dated 26.03.2025 on the file of the Police Station Madanapur, Wanaparthy District pending disposal of the above Criminal petition --.-----.-7 I This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri PASHAM MOHITH, Advocate for the Petitioner and the SRI M.JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'l & 2 and None appeared for the Respondent No.3. The Court made the following: ORDER // THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI I CRIMINAL PETITION No.4635 OF 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section S2B of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ,BNSS, 2023') seeking quashment of the proceedings in Crime No.54 of 2025 of Madanapur Police Station, Wanaparthy District, against the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is sole accused in Crime No.54 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3i6 (2), 316(5), 31.8(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (for short ,BNS, 2023') and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act,1955 (for short, ,EC Act,).

3. Heard Mr. Pasham Mohith, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public prosecutor representing the respondent Nos. l and 2.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that the petitioner is the Proprietor of Rice Mill under the name and style of ,M/s. Lakshmi Venkateshwara Traders', Danthanur Village, Madanapur Mandal, and engaged in the business of milling of paddy. The Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (for short, 'TGSCSCL,) entered into agreement with the petitioner's firm for procuring and milling of paddy and to deliver back the custom nrilling rice. Accordingly, the department I I 2 N7R,/ <)rl.l'.No. 16)5 ol 2025 delivered 8,765 MTs of paddy and the Rice Mill delivered '1922 MTs of CMR Rice. lt is alleged that the TGSCSCL Department had conducted inspection in the petitioner's rice mill on 26.O3.2025 and found 4,608 MTs of paddy missing for the seasons of Rabi 2022-23, Khariff 2022-23, KhanfI 2023-24 and Rabi 2023-24. Thus, a Police Report was lodged against the petitioner for misappropriation of stocks and violation of the agreement and for recovery of the amounts

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the agreement, the de facto complainant and petitioner would be in joint custody of the paddy. Further pleaded that the Government did not properly store the paddy and for natural reasons some of the quantity was damaged Howsoever, as per the agreement, the dispute has to be placed before the Arbitrator and without such an effort, the Government on its own concluding misappropriation and initiating prosecution without any conclusive findings on relevant aspects alleging criminality is untenable. That apart, the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and is intending to see the process through. He further pointed out that the coordinate Bench of this Court ylde Criminal Petition Nos.1574, 1575 of 2025, 895 and 12037 o'( 2024 held that Section 316(5) of BNS, 2023 would not attract in the circumstances of the case and directed the investigating agency for I issuance of 35(3) of BNSS, 2023 notice and to follow the guidelines _-_---.=]+.-: --- --7 3 N7&/ Cr/.P.No.46)5 of 2025 enunciated in Arnesh Kumar y. Sfate of Biharl . Thus pleaded for granting similar relief to meet their hardship. 6 Learned Additionar pubric prosecutor wourd submit that it is a clear case of misappropriation, the petitioner and simirarry praced other rice millers have caused loss of crores of rupees to the State and by the direction of issuance of notice, it is becoming difficurt in proceeding with the investigation for want of cooperation from the petitioner. That apart, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.p.Nos.3933 of 2024,3305 of 2024 and 3306 of 2024. having considered the submissions dismiised the criminar petitions. The petitioner herein is arso facing serf same accusations, therefore, pending investigation proceedings, this petition has to be dismissed. Further submits that, if the court considers otherwise, directing the petitioner for depositing considerabre amount against the complaint mentioned loss.

7. I have perused the materials on record B' Admittedry, the petitioner is a rice mirer and running an industry under the name and styre of 'M/s.Lakshmi Venkateshwara Traders,. It is clear by the averments of the compraint that TGSCSCL Department entered into agreement with the petitioner for carrying out miiling of -ha<1 \. I ' lzot+; a scc zz: l 4 A'IR,/ Cr/.|'j.No. 16 )5 o/ 2025 paddy. Further, in the complaint, the misappropriation has been alleged. Whereas the petitioner,s plea of joint custody and the defences like natural decay, loss due to improper stocking of the materiars are to be examined in the investigation. rn such position, any direction to furnish security would be premature. '.1 I

9. Further, having regard to the nature of the offences and depth of allegations against the petitioner and except the aileged offence under Section 316(5) of BNS, 2023, rest of the accusations are punishable with an imprisonment upto seven years and considering the fact that the petitioner is running rice mill industry and the Government,s contract is discrosing petitioner's werr rooted prace in the society and the aspects that the prosecution has not raised any impediment in securing the presence of the petitioner for investigation and the readiness of the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation, without entering into merits and keeoing all prerogatives of the investigation open and to maintain parity, directing the lnvestigating Agency for issuance of section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023 notice on the petitioner in crrme No.54 of 2025 and to adhere the guidelines of Arnesh Kumar y. Sfate of Bihal before proceeding against the petitioner, is found appropriate- Accordingly, ordered. ln unison, the petitioner is directed to submit ' lzot+1 a scc zzz 7 5 N"R,/ Cr/.P.No. 16 )5 o.[ 202 5 explanation and materials, if any, and shall cooperate with the investigation 10 With this direction, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. \ To, Sd/. S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSI TANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER 'l . The ll Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate at Atmakur 2. The Station House Officer, Madanapur Police Station, Wanaparthy. 3. One CC to SRI PASHAM MOHITH Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at

5. Two CCs to the Sri M.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Addl. Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad IOUTJ Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies SM V HIGH COUR'T DATED: 221A412025 ORDER CRLP.No.4635 o12025 t ,.) t 1 S I A Ig ,z a '\ 5 Z P B z[25 L) s C * r-0 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION (r\