The High Court · 2025

3. Savaria Arif Bhai, Son of Shakur Bhai, Age. 45 years, Occ. Driver, R/o Leelafir (V) Mster Galiyara (Taluq), Bhav Nagr, Guiarat.

4. Javeed Sayyed Yakub, Son of Yakub, Age. 26 years, Occ. Lorry Cleaner, R/o Husseni Viliage, lndira Nagar, Akhola, Jagath Nakha, Chitra Bhav Nagar, Gujarat. ...Petitioner/Accused No.1 to 4 AND

1. The State of Telanqana, Rep. by its Public Pros-gcutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

2. Mattam Mallikariua, Son of Karthika Swamy, Ag Tahasilda- (CS), Ryo #10-37, Adarsh Nagar Colon Sanga Reddy Mandal. . .'1" Respondenustate e.3 Y,P 8 Years, Occ. Deputy o\ieddy pally Village, ...2nd RespondenUComplainant 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 call for the records in connection with C.C.NO. 2326 of 2022, on the file of Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class (SpEial Mobile) at Sanga Reddy District and quash the C.C.NO.2326 of 2022 against the petitioners/Accused No.1 to 4 herein. l.A. NO:2OF2025 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 of all further proceedings includrng appearance of the petitioners inc.c.No. 2326 ot 2o22 on the file of court of Judiciar Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile) at Sanga Reddy District, pending dispoJat oi the main Crl. Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr SOMAVARAPU SATYANARAYANA, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. JITHENDER RAo VEERAMALLA, the Additionar pubric prosecutor on beharf of Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER a THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T]RUMALA DEVIEADA cRtMINAL PETITION No.1U34ot 2025 ORDER: This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (tor short 'BNSS, 2023') seeking quashment of proceedings in C.C.No.2326 ot 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile) at Sanga Reddy, registered for the offences under Section 420 of the lndian penal Code, .1g60 Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, '1955.

2. Heard Sri Somavarapu Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1- State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners suQmits that the specific allegation against the petitioners are that petitioners have illegally transporting PDS rice on 09.09.2022 at 12.30 hours, the petitioners were found in possession of 339.00 quintals of pDS rice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitionur. *o,1,0 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. The allegations on their face value cannot be sustained against the .- 2 petitioners. Further, this Court in Crl.P.Nos.5709 of 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 petitioner is also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

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 t 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 ---7 3 Efo) Ctl.P.No.t4434_2O25 essential factors, on the face of prosecution, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 52E ot BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuanee 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 petitioner herein.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.2326 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile) at Sanga Reddy, against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. I. sulerHA DEVI STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, "li Reddy District

1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court) at San$a 2. The Siation House Officer, Munipally Police Station, Sangareddy Dist. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad.tOUTl 4. Ohe CC to Mr. SOMAVARAPU SATYANARAYANA, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies I HIGH COURT DATED: 0711112025 ORDER CRLP.No.I 4434 of 2025 -i r-l ii S T4 \ O fJ 1,2 llrtl ?gfr * P!.TCL iF(" :{ P Accordingly, this Criminal Pet ition is Allowed. :1,:{ \\