The High Court · 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 quash the proceedings in CC No. 350 of 2025 Hon'ble Vth Additional Judicial First class l/agistrate at Nizamabad in so far as petitioner/sole accused and pass such other order 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 stay of all further proceedings against the petitioner/sole accused in CC No. 350 of 2025 on the file of the Hon'ble V Additional Judicial First class Magistrate at Nizamabad pending disposal of the main criminal petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri ALLURI DIVAKAR REDDY ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Jrthender Rao Veeramalla the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 . and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER *7 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15107 ot 20i5 ORDER: This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioner accused under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023') seeking quashment of proceedings ir C.C.No.350 of 2025 on the file of the learned V Additional Judi ial First Class Magistrate at Nizamabad, registered for the offence:r under Section 318 (4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for st' rrt 'BNS') and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

2. Heard Mr.Alluri Divakar Reddy, learnec :ounsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Jithender Rao Veere nalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respor ient-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner s. :mits that the specific allegation against the petitioner is that he harr procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell thr: same for profit and on 22.01 .2025 at 08.00 hours, the petitioner was found in possession of 1 .90 quintals of PDS rice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner wou ( further submit that without there being any complaint from any bene ficiary, alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a crir inal intent and charging the petitioner for prosecution is untenablr: and improper. The allegations on his face value cannot be sustair ed against the 2 petitioner Further, this Court in Crl.P.Nos.57O9 o'i 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 petitioner is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and requested to pass appropriate orders 6 7 Perused the material available on record. 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 petitioner has 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 -.$\" ( 3 essential factors, on the face of prosecution, this (l >urt finds it to be a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Sr: .tion 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings rgainst the petitioners rs abuse of process of law."

9. The facts and circumstances of the pre sent case also similar to those in the above case and hence; this C I trt finds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 51 8 of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceerj ngs against the petitioner herein.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is I lowed and the proceedings in C.C No.35O of 2025 on the file cf the learned V Additional Judicial Flrst Class Magistrate at Nizamat ad, against the petitioner-accused, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall s I rnd closed sd/ AS (. BHAVANI SWAMY J STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To District.

1. The V Additional Judicial First class Magistrate at Nizar abad, Nizamabad 2. The SHO Dharpatly Police Station, Nizamabad District. 3. The Deputy Tahsitdha(CS), Dharpatty, Nizamabad Dis:r ct, 4 One CC to SRt. ALLURT DTVAKAR REDDy Advocate lt pUCl 5 One CC to SRI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OF,r ,C] 6 Two CD Copies PK/PR \ HIGH COURT DATED:1911112025 I ORDER CRLP.No.15107 ot 2025 .9 O 9*, \\, .{ i.. i t-r -At 15 ,-A ): ( ti Jii' ,[r'l :r il ir' '.1 -'::l \'.,, _ * ..'/ 't.. ^.'tff'' CRIMINAL PEITITION IS ALLOWED AND THE PRO 3EEDINGS IN C.C. NO.35O OF 2025 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS /ACCUSED ARE HEREBY QUASHED. q