Bondhugula Rarnesh v. T'he State of I'clangana & Anr.

The State of Telangana, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad 2. Yerram Kistaiah, S/o Narsaiah Occ: DTDC, Sadashivanagar R/o 5-3-867, Vidyanagar Colony, Kamareddy ...RESPONDENT/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 C.C.No.891 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge- Cum-Judicial ll Class Magistrate at Kamareddy for the offences punishable under Sections 420 IPC and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against the petitioner. l.A. NO: 1 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 stay all further proceedings in C.C.No.891 of 2Q22 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge- Cum-Judicial ll Class Magistrate at Kamareddy for the offences punishable under Sections 420IPC and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G.Vasantha Rayudu , Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. The Court made the following: ORDER .=i=r- !1. ( IN THE HICH COU IT.T'FOR THE STATE OF TE,LANGANA A'T HYD ERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7522 of 2026 Date: 06.0s.2026. Between Bondhugula Rarnesh AND ... Petitioner T'he State of I'clangana. and another .Respondents ORDER lhis Crim inal t'}etition has been filed by the petitioner/accuscd seeking to quash the proceedings in C'C No'891 of 2012. on the file of lcamed Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial ll Class Magistrate at Kamareddy'

Heard Mr.G.Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel lor the petitioner and Mr.J ithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additionat Public Prosecutor lor respondent No' 1 '

The specrfic allegation against the petitioner/accused is that he has proclrred PDS rice fl'orn the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to 2 a sell the same for profit and on I 6. t I .2022, the petitioner was found in possession of 04.94 quintals of PDS rice.

Learned 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 Courl, 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 learned Additional Public Plosecutor 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. 6 Section 7 of the EC Act conternptate that any person contravenes with the production, supply, d istribution and trade of 19 3 essential commodities, is punishabte. As per the prosecution, the petitioner has procttred PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply liom the dealer'