Telangana High Court · 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 quash the FIR No. 125 OF 2024 on the file of Ghanpur Police station, Wanaparthy District ...RESPONDENT/S t.A. ito: 2 0F 2026 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminat Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in FIR No. 125 OF 2024 on the file of Ghanpur Police station, Wanaparthy District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K RATHANGA PANI REDDY , Advocate for the Petitioner and the Mr V.Jithender Rao Addl public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1. and none appear for the Respondent No2. The Court made the following: ORDER ,'.i i /fa R T AT HYDBRABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO !s7 t CRIMINAL PETITION No.4828 of 2026 Date: 02.04.2026 Between: Golla Praveen and two others AND The State of Telangana and another ORDER ...Petitioners Respondents This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.125 of 2024 of Ghanpur Police Station, Wanaparthy District, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. I to 3 for the offences under Sections 318(4) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

2. Heard Mr.K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l.

3. The specific allegation against the petitioners/Accused Nos.l to 3 is that on 15.11.2024, petitioner No.l/accused No.l procured 20 quintals rcf PDS rice from petitioner No.2/accused No.2 and sold it to petitioner No. 3/accused No.3. / 2

4. D'uring the course of hearing, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, basing on the instructions furnished by the concern,ed officer submitted that the lnvestigating Officer after conduct:ing investigation had filed final report before the learned Judicial First class Magistrate, wanaparthy and the learned Magistrzrte has taken cognizance and the case was numbered as C.C.No. 7 5 of 2025 .

5. Lr:arned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners for prosecution is untenable and improper. The alle6iations, even taken at their face value cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Further, this court, in Crl.p.No.5709 of 2019, wtrile considering the same situation, categorically observed that the offences alleged against the petitioners therein could not be continuecl and accordingly quashed the proceedings. The petitioners are also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

6. The learned Additional public prosecutor submits that as per prosecutir)n, the offences said to have been committed by the \ o 'i!+ q i i I t ,* & It I t. I t, i l 3 petitioners rs cheating and violation of Section 7 of the EC Act and requested to pass appropriate orders.

7. 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 petitioners have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer.

8. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that: "There is no overment indicating that the petitioner in any way deceptively induced the beneficiaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or the beneficiary entusted the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitioner and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violation of a lawful direction or conffact. In the absence of essential factors, on the face of prosecution, this Court finds it to be afit case to exercise the iurisdiction under Section 528 o/ BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of lau,".

9. 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.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.75 of 2025, on the file .of the learned 1 4 Judicial First Class Magistrate, Wanaparthy, against petitionr:rs/accused Nos.l to 3, are hereby quashed. P,:nding miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER

1. The Judicial First class Magistrate wanaparthy District 2- The Stertion House Officer Police Station Ghanpur, Wanaparthy District 3. one co to sRl. K RATHANGA pANt REDDY Advocate topucl 4. Two COs to PUBLTC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CCr Copies AG/PSLN HIGH COURT D :02t04t2026 * s Q); O * O B APR ?I]2$ -l- ORDER CRLP.No.4828 of 20ZG ALLOWING THE GRLP @i.,.