Shaik Arshad and two others v. The State of Telangana & Anr.

'

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

P Nikhil Raj,, Occ. Dy.Tashildar, R/o. Nizambad Diskict, Telangana State. 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 against the Petitioner/Accused No .l to 3 in FIR No. 1 19 of 2025 on the file of the SHO Yedapally Police Station, Nizamabad District ...RESPONDENTS l.A. NO: 2 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 stay of all further proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused No 1 to 3 in FIR No. 1 19 ol 2025 on the file of the SHO Yedapally Police Station, Nizamabad Diskict 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 Alluri Divakar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. The Court made the following: ORDER / IN THE HIGTI COURT FORTHE STATE OFTELANGANA ATHYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENTVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7016 of 2026 Date:04.05.2026 o Between: Shaik Arshad and two others AND The State of Telangana, and another ...Petitioners ..Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.l 19 of 2025 of Yedapally Police Station, Nizamabad District, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.l to 3, for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha,2023, Section l7(e) of the Telangana State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act').

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

The specific allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 3 is that they have procured pDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to seil the same for profit and on 04.06.2025, the petr$oners. were found in possession of 5l bags of pDS rice totalling 28.70 quintals. -

Leamed 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 Crr.p.No.5709 of 2019, while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the offences arteged 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. t/ 3

Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade oi essential commodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitip, ners have procured PDS rice from 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: I I "There is no avermenl indicating that thz pelitioner in dny veay deceptively induced the benefciaries lo part reith the supplied PDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitioner and they dishonestly misappropiated or converted to their ovwr use or used it in violation ofa lawful direction or conlract. In the absence of essential factors, on the face of prosecution, this Court finds it to be a lit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance 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 applyrng the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein.