The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

2. Sri. P. Sridhar Goud, Sub-lnspector, Nizamabad Rural P.S, Nizamabad District - 503001 ...RES'.NDENTS/..M'LA'NANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the ftrlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.1296 of 2019, on the file of the Il Additional Judicial fvlagistrate of First Class at Nizamabad. l.A. NO: 2 OF 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 interim STAY of all further proceedings in proceedings in C.C. No. 1296 of 2019, on the file of the ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad, including appearance and attendance of the petitloners / Accused Nos. 1 to 4, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition and pass This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing 1re Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argument! ;f Sri GAJE RAGHU ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veera nalla, Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and nort appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER I ! I I I i I I i I I I I J 1 i THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVIEADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14665 of 2o25 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 petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.1296 of 2019, on the file of the learned ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 42O o'f IPC and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955

2. Heard Sri G.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 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 petitioners is that the petitioners have procured PDS Rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 30.05.2018 at about

05.00 hours, the petitioners were found in possession of 171 bags of PDS Rice, weighing about 10810 Kgs.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that without there bein g any complaint from any beneficiary alleging that , I 2 ETO,J Cn.P.No.14665 2025 '4. ':;:il the Rice was procured deceptively or with a crirr nal intent and charging the petitioners for prosecution is untenabl: and improper The allegations on their face value cannot be susta red against the petitioners. Further, this Court in Crl.P.Nos,57O9 of 2 )19 and 33493 of 2015 while considering the same situation, categ(,t cally observed that the offences alleged against the petitioners th:'ein cannot be continued and quashed the proceedings. The petitio ers herein are also entitled to the same relief and hence praye: to quash the proceedings against the petitioners

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor subnri ted that as per prosecution, the offence said to have been corr -nitted by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Sections , and B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. He further subnlt -'d that charge sheet has been filed in this case vide C.C.No.'1296 >f 20'lg and is pending on the file of the learned ll Additional Judicr I Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad and hence requested to Fi ss appropriate orders.

6. Perused the material available on record. 7 . Sections 7 and B of the Essential Cc r rmodities Act contemplate that any person contravenes with :l e production, I I 3 ETOJ Cd.P.No.14665 2025 supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities or abetment 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 wilh the petitioners and they drshonestly misappropriated or conveded to their own use or used it in ,riolation of a lawful direction or contract. ln the absence of essenfla/ factors, on the face of prosecution, this CourT finds it to be a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 o/ BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioners rs abuse of process of law." \ I

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 528 of BNSS, 2023 by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in 4 ETO,] crrP No 14665 2025 C.C.No.1296 of 2019, on the file of the learned ll Ac iitional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad, are hereby r1r ashed 11 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall s t tnd closed. SD/- AHIJI :D ABDULLA KHAN AS:; STANT REGISTRAR G //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Addl. Judicial lVlagistrate of First Class at Nizam;r ad. 2. The SHO, PS Nizamabad Rural, Nizamabad 3 One CC to SRI GAJE RAGHU Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to the Addl PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocat: OPUCI 5. Two CD Copies GE/PSL J kpS -"1'- HIGH COURT DATED:1211112025 :,' .,_ -.. -\.. .\,*/: ,'9. ORDER CRLP.No.14665 of 2025 I \,- /i ,'). t.i. "r' n r,,: LL f.ffi ALLOWING THE CRLP WITHOUT COSTS