The High Court · 2025

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for 2 the State of Telangana Yerram Kistaiah, S/o Narsaiah, Age 53 years, Occ.Dy.Tashildar (CS), R/o. Kamareddy Mandal and District , Telangana State. ...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. 64 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kamareddy in so far as petitioner/Accused t.A. NO: 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 stay of all further proceedings against the petitioner/Accused in CC No. 64 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kamareddy. This Petition coming on for hearing, upqn perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla , learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'1, and none appears for Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14 of 2025 ORDER:- 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.64 of 2023, pendlng on the file of the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kamareddy, registered for the offences punishable under Section 42Q ol IPC and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

2. Heard Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused as well as Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1- State.

3. The specific allegation against the petitioner/accused is that the petitioner has procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 24.01 .2023 at around 01 .30 hours, the petitioner was found in possession of 58 bags of PDS rice, weighing about 36.20 quintals.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that without there being any complaint from any beneficiary alleging that -a"/ 2 afo) Cd.P.No.14594_2025 .- -xq the rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging the petitioner for prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations on his face value cannot be sustained against the petitioner. 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 herein is also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that as per prosecution, the offence said to have been committed by the petitioner is cheating and violation of Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. He further submitted that charge sheet has been filed in this case vide C.C.No.64 of 2023 and is pending on the file of the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at.Kamareddy and hence requested to pass appropriate orders.

6. Perused the material available on record.

7. Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act conlemplate that any person contravenes with the production, I / 3 tto) Crl.P.No.14594_202 S supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities or abetment in this regard, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioner has procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer. t

8. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.p.No.722l of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that:- "There is no averment indicatiirg that the petitioners in any way deceptively induced the beneficiaries to part with the supptied pDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the pDS rice purchased by them with the petitioners and they dishones y misappropriated or conveded to their own use or used it in violation of a lavvful direction or contract. ln the absence of essential factors, on the face of prosecution, this Coutt 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 are similar to those in the above case and hence, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 52g of BNSS, 2023 by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.64 of 2023, on ----.--- / L 4 ETOJ Crl.P.No.14594_2025 t the file of the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kamareddy, are hereby quashed.

11. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// P.C. SULEKHA DEVI TANT REGI ON OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kamareddy

2. The Station House Officer, Kamareddy Police Station, Kamareddy District.

3. One CC to SriAlluri Divakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana (OUT)

5. Two CD Copies BJLB/SA I \ \ I I t . -.:':: -' -j' - * E t:C ffi i,; ..!;, .,! l, -,! : .. t ,.- t-: : '.-: ^\." '.! .. * .,r; -11' .-)r HIGH COURT DATED:1111112025 ORDER CRLP.No.1 4594 of 2025 iJ ,i ),2, Y ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION E "I' .4