The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad. Sri. Jupalli Sathish Raq,, S/o. Ramarao, Aged 43 year, Occ. Civit Supplies lnspector, Peddapalli, Rampalli , Peddapalli Diskict. ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that rn the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the impugned proceedings in C.C.No. 414 of 2023, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nandimyadaram, against the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2 l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 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 intenm stay of all further proceedings in prcceedings in C.C. No, 414 of 2023, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate tf First Class at Nandimyadaram, including appearance and attendance o, the petitioners / Accused Nos 1, 2 & 3, pending disposal of the above Crimina petition and pass. This Petrtion coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri GAJE RAGHU. Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rac Veeramalla. the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondont No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No 2 The Court made the following: ORDER ( THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.13027 ot 2025 ORDER: This Criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023') by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.414 ot 2023 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nandimydaram, registered for the offences under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

2. Heard Mr. G.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. Perused the record. 3 The allegation against the petitioners is that they have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at a lower price by deceiving them, with an intention to sell the same at a higher price for profit.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present crime was registered against the petitioners on the allegation that they procured the rice deceptively and with criminal intent, despite there being no complaint fronr the beneficiaries. lt is contended that I i I I i i 2 \ the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not make out a pima facie case against the petitioners. Furthermore, this court, in Crl.P.Nos.5709 of 2019 and 33493 of 2015, rvhite dealing with similar circumstances, has categorically held that the offences alleged against the petitioners therein cannot be sustained and accordingly quashed the proceedings. The petilioners are similarly placed and are entifled to the same relief. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional public; prosecutor fairly submils that in similar circumstances, this Courl has quashed the proceedings against the petitioners therein in numoer of cases. 6 Perused the material available on record

7. Sections 7 and g of the Essential tlommodities Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of essentiar commocrities or abetment in this regard, is punishable. As per the prosecuti.n, the petitioners have procured pDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer

8. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.p.No.,,2t2Z of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that: 3 "There is no averm.ent. mdicating that the petitioners in any way deceptively induced .the beneliciarles b paft with ne supptiel PDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted tne pbS iie purchased by them with the petitioners and they dishoneslty iiiappropriatea or convefted to their own use or used it in viotation of a iavtfi direction or contract. ln the absence of essenlra/ factors, on the face of prosecution, this Coutt finds it to be a fit case lo exercise the jurisdiction under Section 52g of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioners rb abuse ol.p rocess of law.,,

9. The facts and circumstances of the present case are also similar to those in the above case. Hence, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section S2g of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.414 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nandimydaram, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, pendiqg if qny, qh_all stand clqqed SD/. K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ s CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nandimyadaram, peddapa i Dist 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Dharmaram, peddapalli Dist 3. Two CCs to the pUBLtc pRosEcuToR, High court at Hyderabad. (oUT) 4. One CC to SRI GAJE RAGHU Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD Copies TPK./PSL YY HIGH COURT DATED:09110t2025 ORDER CRLP.No.13027 ot ZO2S l llE S14 14: 1S (' .;: L', ) ) ) 2 2 l{0l, 2n5 t. spAT crr€O 't CRIMINAL PETITTON IS ALLOWED d€aA B }k-.