Praveen @ Puri Praveen Kumar & Anr. v. The State ofTelangana ORDER & Anr.

'

State of Telangana, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad

Sri. V. Prasad, Sub-lnspector of Maheshwaram PS, Future City, Rangareddy District. ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO 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 crime. No. 155 ot 2026 on the fih of PS Maheshwaram, District Rangareddy/Future City, against the petitioners/ accused' l.A. NO: 2OF 2026 Petition under section 482 ot Cr.P .C 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 in crime. No. 155 ol 2026 on the file of PS tlaheshwaram, District Rangareddy/ Future City, pending disposal of the above criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C. Vivekanand, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. The Court made the following: ORDER T IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGAI{A AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITI ON No.6888 of 2026 Date:30.04.2026 Between: Praveen @ Puri Praveen Kumar and another AND ..Petitioners The State of Telangana and another ORDER ...Respondents This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 155 of 2026 of Maheshwaram police Station, Future City, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.l and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha,2023 and Secrion 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ,EC Act,).

2. Heard Mr.C.Vivekanand, learned 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 (drspll the same for profit and on IS.04.2026, the petitioners were found in possession of 25 quint4ls of pDS n"e. \ \ ) ji1

Learned 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 allegations, even taken at their face value cannot be sustained against the petitioners. 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 petitioners are also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

The leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per prosecution, the offences said to have been committed by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the 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 essential commodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer sEEllrr!7 ,-,.-r -,_ o 7 . A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that: "'fhere is no avermenl indicating that the petitioner in any way deceptively induced the benefciaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or the benefaury entrasted the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitioner and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use or useLl it in violution ofa lawful direction or conlruct. ln the absence of essential factors, on the lace ofprosecution, this Court Jinds it to be a rtt case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuence of pruceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of lart, ".

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.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is' allowed and the proceedings in Crime No. 155 of 2026 of Maheshwaram Police Station, Future City, against the petitioners/accused Nos.l and 2, are hereby quashed. Pending nliscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. IL DEPUTY REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// !+ \-7 To, SECTION OFFICER

1. The Junior civil Judge-cum-XVll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class at Maheshwaram - - ---EEE!.'Fffi'-- --,*"_ t ,/

2. The Station House Officer, Maheshwaram police Station, Future City District 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri C. Vivekanand, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies VH/KA N 1 HE Si4{€ n 5 t{A\ 206 t .) .) '19, 't itv \-\ i.; li?1TC.\ + r.{.:.,. HIGH COURT DATED: 3010412026 ORDER CRLP.No.6888 of 2026 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PET!TION ^$ulw