The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep.by its public prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad pa-sula Swamy, Son or pochaiah,,Ase. 41 D C Siricilla District _S O Siddipet, R/o Neretra viilag';, Tha;g;ir;pirr}/ nrJi]i;i, nr,:,;;,r_ ""j;r53l?L.,'5llff631t,ot. ...RESPONDENT NO.2/COMPLAINANT Petation under Section 52g of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of crimin'ar Fetition, the Hiqh court.r, be pteased to cau for the records in connection witn c c.r,lci. zist ii zolt,'ii'ii!" 1l:.9lgourt of Judiciar Magistrate of First crass at Dubbak or siooipetbisi, anJ QUASH the c.c.No. 267 of 2021, on the fire of couri of Judiciar rr,r"g"ii;t" o1 First class at Dubbak of siddipet District against the petitioners/AccJseo No_ r and 2 herein l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 52g of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminir Fetition, the Hioh court mav be..pleased to Stay of ail Jurther proceedings inctudinj ipp"iirr""-"i"iu petitioners in c. c. No. 267 or zo21 , on the fire court of-Jud'iciat uagstrate oi First class at Dubbak of siddipet Dist, pending disposit of the main crrlpetirion This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri SOMAVARAPU SATYANARAYANA, AdVOCAIC fOr thE PEtitiONCrS ANd SRI. JITHENDER RAo vEERAMALLA, Additionar pubric prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2 -of The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA T):VI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15013 of 202!i ORDER This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/zr rcused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surel sha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023') seeking quashment of 1: oceedings in C.C.No.267 ot 2021 on the file of the learned Judicia Vagistrate of First Class, Dubbak, Siddipet District, registered for' the offences under Section 420 of lndian Penal Code, 1860 (for slt rrt'lPC') and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

2. Heard Sri Somavarapu Satyanarayana, lez rned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Jithender Rao Veerar ralla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the resp, ,ndent No.1- State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners sulr rits that the specific allegation against the petitioners is that they r lve procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 03.03.202'l at 08:00 AM, the petitioners t rere found in possession of 271 .80 quintals of PDS rice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would 1 rrther submit that without there being any complaint from any benef r iary, alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a crim r al intent and charging the petitioners for prosecution is untenable a rd improper. 2 The allegations on their face value cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Further, this Court in Crl.P.Nos.5709 of 20'19 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 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 per the prosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer. B. 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 i l 3 violation of a lawful direction or contract. ln the a:;ence of essential factors, on the face of prosecution, this CoL l finds it to be a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Secri ,n 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings a; rinst the petitioners is abuse of process of law."

9. The facts and circumstances of the pret;r nt case also similar to those in the above case and hence, this Cor-r finds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 52i\ of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedirr, s against the petitioners herein.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allcrued and the proceedings in C.C.No.267 of 2021 on the file of the li: rrned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak, Siddipet District against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2, are hereby quashed Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall st: r d closed. SD/- U.SUDHA ASSI! TANTREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I ECTION OFFICER To, '1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Dubbak , Siddip( t Dist 2. The Station House Officer, Thogta Police Station, Thogta. iiddipet District 3 One CC to SRI SOMAVARAPU SATYANARAYANA Advr ;ate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor. High Court for the State cf lelangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 5 Two CD Copies & VM/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: '|811112025 I ORDER CRLP.No.15013 of 2025 Z i ;c- 22 ii ru5 nn,, l'/ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION n ) J