Shaik Masthan & Anr. v. The State ofTelangana & Anr.

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad. ...(Complainant)

Smt. T.Kavitha, Sl of Police, Bonakal PS, Khammam District. ..(Defacto Complainant) ........Respondent 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 impugned proceedings in C.C.No. 12812022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Madhira. l.A. NO: 'l OF 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 interim stay order of all further proceedings in C.C.No. 128 ol 2022' on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Madhira, including appearance and attendance of the PetitionersiAccused Nos. Al & 42, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memt andum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Acr rryulu Rompicharla Y.L.N., Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao v:eramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 nd none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER t tN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE, HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.5320 of 2026 Date:10.04.2026 Between: Shaik Masthan and another AND The State of Telangana and another ...Petitioners ,..Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.t and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.128 of 2022, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Madhira.

2. Heard Mr.Acharyulu, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

The specific allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos.l and 2 is that they have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 17 .02.2022, the 2 petitioners were found in possession of 26 bags of PDS rice totalling l3 quintals.

Learned counsel for the petitioners woul(l riubmit that without there being any complaint from any benefic ary, alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a crirr i r:rl intent and charging the petitioners for prosecution is untenable r nd improper. The allegations, even taken at their face value cann,r be sustained against the petitioners. Further, this Court, in Crl. '.No.5709 of 2019, while considering the same situation, categoric rlly observed that the offences atleged against the petitioners thereir oould not be continued and accordingly quashed the pro(( jdings. The petitioners are also entitled to the same relief and he rce prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

The learned Additionat Public Prosecutor sub r its that as per prosecution, the offences said to have been conr ritted by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Section 7 cl the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act') and re,l rcsted to pass appropriate orders.

Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate thr any person contravenes with the production, supply, distributic,r and trade of 3 essential commodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS rice lrom the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer.

A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that: "There is no averment indicating thal lhe petitioner in any wuy rleceptively mduced the benefciaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or the benefciary entn$led the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitioner und they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use or used il m violation ofa lawful direction or contracl- In the absence of Lssential fuctors, on the face o-f prosecution, this Court iinds it to be q.l)t case lo erercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance ol proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law".