The High Court · 2025

C/o. DCSO, Nizamabad, R/o. H. No. 1-2-1211116, Srinagar Colony, Vinayaka Nagar, Nizamabad ...RESPONDENTS 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 CC No. 1606 of 2022 on the file of the ll Additional Judicial First class Magistrate at Nizamabad in so far as petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3. 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 stay of all further proceedings against the petitioners/Accused No. 1 to 3 in CC No. 1606 of 2022 on the file of the ll Additional Judicial First class Magistrate at Nizamabad 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 Petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramaila, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER ., il, d THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA ot 2025 This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.i, to 3 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023') seeking quashment of proceedings in C.C.No.1606 of 2022 on the file of the learned ll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nizamabad District, registered for the offences under Section 42O of lndian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'lPC') and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

2. Heard Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.l- State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the sqecific allegation against the petitioners is that they have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 27.06.2022 at 6.15 AM, the petitioners were found in possession of 42.85 quintals of PDS rice.

4. . Learned counsel for the petitioners would further 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. 2 EO) The allegations on their face value cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Further, this Court in Crl.P.Nos.57O9 ol 2019 and 33493 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 commifted 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 ) 3 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 BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioners is abuse of process of law."

9. 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 applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. '10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.1606 ot 2022 on the file of the learned ll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nizamabad District, against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/. T. SRINIVASA REDDY ASS]STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Additional Judicial First class Magistrate at Nizamabad z.TheStationHouseOfficer'NizamabadRuralPoliceStation,Nizamabad. 5. rwo CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana' Hyderabad (our) +. bne CC to Sri. Alluri Divakar Reddy Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies ?*- HIGH COURT DATED:0411112025 ORDER CRLP.No.14296 ot 2025 -.......:: i t:E ii i;i, ,\. l: ^'.L,,.1\.,,. :.) 20tEc&l ,u?, \{r -t -u, ,: li o ], ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ('u h -\.r,)