The High Court · 2025

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

2. Sri. A. Thirupathi, Sub-lnspector of Police, Echoda, Adilabad District, Pincode.

504307. ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT 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 impugned proceedings in C.C.No. 340 of 2025, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Boath 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 grant interim stay of all further proceedings in proceedings in C.C. No. 340 of 2025, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Boath including appearance and attendance of the petitioners / Accused Nos. 1 to 3, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri GAJE RAGHU, Advocate for the Petitioners and SRl. JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 & 2 The Gourt made the following: ORDER /. THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA I] EVIEADA CRIMIN AL PETITIO N No.152 39 of 202ti ORDER: This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioners_;i( cused Nos.1 to 3 under section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik suraksha s anhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023,) seeking quashment of prr ceedrngs in c'c No 340 0f 2025 0n the fire of the rearned Judiciar r lagistrate of First class at Boath, registered for the offences unc er Sections 318(4) and 'l 12 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (tor ;hort ,BNS,) and Section 7 of the Essential Commodilies Act, 1955 rnd Section 17(e) of the Telangana State Civil Suppties of public Distribution System Act, 2016.

2. Heard Sri G.Raghu, learned counsel for th,: petitioners as well as Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Addili rnal public Prosecutor appearing for respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners subm t; that the specific allegation against the petitioners is that they havt procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 23.03.2025 at 11:30 hours, the petitioners rt:re found in possession of 290 quintals of pDS rice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would furtr :r submit that without there being any complaint from any beneficiary alleging thatilhe rice was procured deceptivery or with a criminar r tent and I i.- t:.-; 2 charging the petitioners for prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations on their face value cannot be sustained against the petitioners. 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 petitioner 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 offences said to have been committed by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, '1 955 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.

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 3 purchased by them with the petitioners and they c misappropriated or converted to their own use or violation of a lawful direction or contract- ln the r essential factors, on the face of prosecution, this Cr to be a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Se()1 BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings ,t petitioners is abuse of process of law." shonestly rsed it in rsence of rrt finds it on 528 of rainst the

9. The facts and circumstances of the pres -.nt case also similar to those in the above case and hence, this Cort t finds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 52t of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceeriir 1s against the petitioners herein.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is al rwed and the proceedings in C.C.No.340 of 2025 on the file of the l,: rrned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Boath, against the petitic rers-accused Nos.'l to 3, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall sta r d closed. SD/. S. MI LLIKARJUNA RAO ASSI:i rANT REGtsTRAR //TRUE COPYII iECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 2 4 E VM/Sa Iffi gtjJiJi 9ne 99 to sSitiJ.d HIbfil,T3?#',':i3lfl3n' Echod: Adirabad District .lr-sl cla s: qt Bo-ath, Ad ira bad ] stricr Prosecutor, Hidh c;;ilitXi st"t" o -erangana "{1tJ:,3[""3] LtiSH Two CD Copies "{o6"".:;# M, HIGH COURT DATED: 2011112025 l i I i I I i I I i i i Ij I I I I I I i I I l i I I I i I I ! a I I - - :::-i ..-.: .. .I riI_..,:\\ ".' hia-'l - .'\ i:c uu5 i,,) ,' l ORDER CRLP.No.15239 ot 2025 [i\ r) t .l' ,.,., i,_ i -' 11- i:: ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION t0