Puri Srikanth and three others v. The State ofTelangana & Anr.

34i2, Srikanth Colony, Amangal, Mahabub Nagar District, Telangana. AND ...PETITIONER/ACCU SED 'l . State of Telangana, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad

Sri. Y. Rama Krishna, S/o Late Y. Balraj, Age. 40 Years, Occ: Deputy Tahsildar (CS), O/o DCSO, Civil Suply Officer Rangareddy District, Fyo Flat No. 601, YBR Park Apartment, Hyderguda, Hyderabad ... RESPONDENTDE.FACTO /COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High C,ourt may be pleased to quash the proceedings in Crime .No. 223 of 2026, On the file of P.S.,Shamshabad, District Rangareddy/ Future City against the Petitioner/Accused. ..,: .tt.1 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 in crime. No.223 ot 2026 on th; file of p.s., shamshabad, District Rangareddy/ Future city, pending dipsoal 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 Petitioner and the public prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIG H COURT T'OR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7l54 of 2026 Date:05.05.2026 Between Puri Srikanth and three others AND The State of Telangana, and another ...Petitioners ...Respondents ORDER This Criminat Petition lras been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.223 of 2026 of Shamshabad Police Station, Future City, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.l to 4, for the offences punishable under Sections 318( ) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha,2023 (tbr short 'BNS') and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act').

2. Heard Mr.C.Vivekanand, Ieamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. I

The specific allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 4 is that they have procured PDS rice from the benehciaries at ,2 cheaper rate to sell the same lor profit and on 29.04.2026, the petitioncrs were found in possession ol 197 bags of PDS rice totall in-rr 88.65 quintals

[.eamed counsel lor the petitioners would submit that without there being any complaint from any beneficiary, alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or rvith a crirninal intent and charging thc petitir>ners lor prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations, even takcn at their facc value cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Iiurther, this Court. in Crl.P.No.5709 of 20 19, ivhile considering the sarne situation, categorically observed that the offences alleged against the petitioners therein could not be continucd and accordingly quashed the proceedings. The petitioners are also entitled to the sarne relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners

The leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submlts that as per prosecution, the offences said to havc been committed by the petitioners is chealing and violation of Section 7 of the EC Act and requested to pass appropriate orders.

Scctiorr 7 of the IIC Act conternplate that any person contravcnes rvith the production, supply. distribution and trade of a 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 ol this Court in Crt'P'No'7227 of 2025 has considered the identicat facts and observed that: "There is no avermenl i dicoting lhQl thc pelilioner in any way deceptively inclucetl the bencfit.iaries lo PQt't b'ith thc supplied PDS rice or the benefcicrry) ttllruslcd the PDS rice purchased hy then t'ith the petilioner and thel tlishoncstl.t nisapproPrtQled or converled lo their owfi use or usetl it in vblarton ol u lavfttl dircction or conlracl ln the absence of essential .[acl<trs. on the -faca ({ Prosecldion' this Court fnds il to be ufit cQse to arercise tha jurisdictio under Scction 528ofBNSS' 2023. Thus, conli, ruunce ol procecdings ugainst lhe Pelitioner is abuse of proce.ss of law .

The lacts and circumstances ol the present case also similar to those in the above case and hence, this Court hnds 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.