Mr.A.Imran Khan v. The State ofTelangana & Anr.

The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana.

Mujuge Srinivas, S/o. Narayana, Age. 49 years, Occ. Dy. Tahsildhar, DCSO Office, Nizamabad, R/o. H. No. 4-5-5, Jammanjettygally of Armoor Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District, Telangana State. ...Respondents Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused in cc No. 159 oI 202O on the file of the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor. l.A. NO: 2OF 2026 Petition under section 528 of B.N.S.S 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 in cc No. 159 ot IOZO on the file of the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor pending disposal of the main criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A.Divakar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.6017 of 2026 Datez 21.04.2026. Between: Mr.A.Imran Khan AND ...Petitioner The State of Telangana, and another ...Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.l59 of 2020, on the file of leamed Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor

2. Heard Mr.A.Divakar Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents

The specific allegation against the petitioner/accused is that he has procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to c ;t .:: sell the same for profit and on 04.09.2020, the petitioner was found in possession of I I6 bags of PDS rice totalling 76. I 5 quintals.

Leamed counsel for the petitioner would submit that without there being any complaint from any beneficiary, alleging that the nce 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.

The leamed 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 Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act') and requested to pass appropriate orders.

Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate that any person contravenes with-the production, supply, distribution and trade of !8.:16+ 3 essential commodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioner has procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer 7 . 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 that the petitioner in any way deceptively induced the beneficiaries to part \rith the supplied pDS rice or the bene.ficiary entrusted the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitioner and the.y dishonestly misdppropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violation ofa lawful direction or contrurct. In the absence of essenlial faclors, on the lace of prosecution, this Court fi.nds it to be a ft case t() exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuonce of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law".

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 petitioner herein.