The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana,, Rep by the Public Prosecutor, Through SHO Itikyala, Jogulamba Gadwal District, High Court at Hyderabad Pincode 500066. ...PETITIONEzuACCUSED

2. Sri.P. Maharshi,, W/o Chinna Maddileti, Age. 24 Yrs., Occ. Junior Asst., 0/o District Civil supply office Gadwal, R/o Alamapur village and mandal. Pincode s09152. ...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 against the Petitioner/Accused in CC No. 675 of 2024 on the file of Honourable Junior Civil Judge Court cum Judicial lt/agistrate of First Class at Alampur. 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 STAY all further proceedings, iricluding the appearance of the Petitioner/Accused, in CC No. 675 ol 2024 on the file of Honourable Junior Civil Judge Court cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Alampur, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the ltlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri GUJJULA IIADHUSUDAN, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER i. THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14740 of 2025 ORDER This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2C23 (for short 'BNSS, 2023') seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.675 of 2024 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial fi/lagistrate of First Class at Alampur, registered for the offences under Section 318(4) of BNS and Section 7 of lhe Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

2. Heard Sri Gujjula Madhusudan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao V'eeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-lltate

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the specific allegation against the petitioner is that they have procured pDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the samr-. for profit and on 01 .10.2024 at about 10.00 hrs., the petitioner was found in possession of 51 quintals of PDS rice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would furtrerr submit that without there being any complaint from any beneficiar,T, alleging that th e \ rice was procured deceptively or with a crimirral ) t intent and J 2 charging the petitioner for prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations on their face varue cannot be sustained against the petitioner. Further, this Court in Crl p Nos.57O9 of 2019 and 33493 of 2015 while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the offencqs aileged 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 petitioner is cheating and vioration of Sections 7 and g of the Essential Commodities Act, .lgS5 and requested to pass appropriate orders

6. Perused the material available on record

7. Sections 7 and B of the Essential Commodities Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of essentiar 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 1 \ 3 -7

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 c r used it in violation of a lawful direction or contract- ln the absence of essential factors, on the face of prosecution, this (lourt 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 BltlSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedirrgs against the petitioner herein

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is alk>wed and the proceedings in CC No.675 of 2024 on the file of th: learned Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistiate of First Class, l\lampur, against the petitioner, are hereby quashed MegglLe!._oulIgltionq pending if any, shall stand closed SD/.N.CHI\NDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, Ny

1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Alampur. 2. The SHO, PS ltikyala, District Jogul.am.ba Gadwal. 3 One CC to SRl. GUJJULA MADHUSUDAN Advocate [OPUC] 4 One CC to the Addl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate; [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:1211'l.12025 ORDER CRLP.No.14740 of 2025 , . - :::=\\ .,.. os}l. 'c) '.. \.,r \'' L; .-t a- lr - .4\\ 1$.h l:il iN\ " .+":; ' i:i ;1.: - :-1- i', -'- ".' i. i- l ) '|,,. \r a<. \ (a/, ALLOWING THE CRLP WTTHOUT COSTS 0, )1 \ 3 I ?