The High Court · 2025

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at 2. Marata Srinivas, Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Yergatla Mandal, Nizamabad District Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition. the High Court may be pleased to quash the impugned proceedings in F I R. No. 508 of 2025, on the file of the Armoor Police Station, Nizamabad District, in so far as Petitioners / Accused Nos. 1 to 6 are concerned l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of 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 interim stay of all further proceedings in F.l.R. No. 508 of 2025, on the file of the Armoor Police Station, Nizamabad District., including arrest, appearance and attendance of the petitione rs/Accused Nos. 1 to 6, pending disposal of the above Criminal petitron This Petition 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 Petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'1 , and none appears for Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA TIEVIEADA CRIMINAL PETI TION No.13955 ol 20iIE ORDER: This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surzrksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') seeking quashment of proceedings in F.|.R.No.S0B of 2025 on the file of the Armoor F)olice Station, Nizamabad District, registered for the offences uncer Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'ECA').

2. Heard Sri G.Raghu, Iearned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Aclditional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1 -State

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners su cmits that the specific allegation against the petitioners is that the 7 have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to s ell the same for profit and on 20.09.2025, the petitioners were found irr possession of

145.50 quintals of PDS rice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners wot Id further submit that without there being any complaint from any ber eficiary, alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a crinlinal intent and charging the petitioners for prosecution is untenab e and improper. The allegations on their face value cannot be susta ined against the petitioners. Further, this Court in Crl.P.Nos.5709 of 2019 and 33493 2 of 2015 while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the offences alleged against the petitioners therein cannot be continued and quashed the proceedings. The petitioners are also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per prosecution, the offence said to have been committed by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and requested to pass appropriate orders.

6. Perused the material available on record.

7. Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities in this regard, is punishable. As per the prosecution, 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.7227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that: "There is no averment indicating that the petitioners in any way deceptively induced the beneficiaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitioners and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violation of a lawful direction or contract. ln the absence of essential factors, on the face of prosecution, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of -'--7 3 BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings :rgainst the petitioners is abuse of process of law."

9. The facts and circumstances of the pre sent case also similar to those in the above case and hence, this C rurt finds it tc be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 52 3 of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceerlirrgs against the petitioner herein.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is irllowed and the proceedings in F.l.R.No.50B of 2025 on the file of the Armoor Police Station, Nizamabad District, against the petitioners-ac,:used Nos.'1 to 6, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall sta,nd closed. SiD/- B,REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' ( :T ! SE]TION OFFICER I To,

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Armoor, Nizamabal.

2. The Station House Officer, Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad District

3. One CC to Sri Gaje Raghu, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State o1 l-elangana (ouT)

5. Two CD Copies BJLB/PSL d HIGH COURT DATED:2811012025 l ORDER CRLP.No.13955 of 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED t * 1 {H,E q \'I C 1r r0uffi t.a * FATCtIeO J I,lx^