The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana. M. Srinivas, S/o. Narayana, Age.50 years, Occ: Dy.Tahasildar (CS), Armoor, R/o. Armoor Town and Manda-i Nizamabad District ,relangilftSlflB*o="r" 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. 131 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor in so far as petitionersiAccused No. 1 and 2 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 stay of all further proceedings against the Petitioners / Accused No. 1 and 2 in cc No. 131 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First class at Armoor pending disposal of the main criminal petition 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 Petitioners and SRl. JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 anci iione Appeared for the Resporldent i.lo.2 The Court made the following: ORDER -l THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DT VI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15640 of 20, t5 ORDER:- 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 5 28 of Bharatiya Nagarik Sui-aksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seekirr ; the Couri to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accr sed Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.131 of 2022, on the file of learned t) incipal Judicial l\4agistrate of First Class at Armoor, registered i r the offences punishable under Sections 420 of lndian Penal Cc,r e, Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

2. Heard Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned c tunsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 as well as Sr Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosec ltor appearing for the respondent No.1- State.

3. The specific allegations against the pet t oners/accused Nos.'l and 2 are that the petitioners herein haver procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to se:l the same for profit and on 16.02.2022 at about 08.00 hours, ihe petitioners were found in possession of 52 bags of pDS rice rv ;ighing around

31.50 Quintals ETO,I Crl.P No.15640_2025

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that without there being any complaint from any beneficiary alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and 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 petitioners therein cannot be continued and quashed the proceedings. The petitioners herein is also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners 5, The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that as per prosecution, the offence said to have been committed by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Sections 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, '1955 and hence requested to pass appropriate orders.

6. Perused the material available on record. 3 EIDJ Crl.P.No.15640 2025

7. Sections 7 of the Essential Commodities r rct contemplate that any person contravenes with the pro: .rction, supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities or lbetment in this regard, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the retitioners have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after I upply from the dealer.

8. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.lr c.7227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed ttt; rt:- "There is no averment indicating that the petitione,-: deceptively induced the beneficiaries to part with the rice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice purcl i with the petitioners and they dishones y misapl converTed to their own use or used it in violation of a t. or contract. ln the absence of essential factors, <tt prosecution, this Court finds it to be a fit case tc jurisdiction under Section 528 ol BNSS, 2023. Thus. ) proceedings against the petitioners ls abuse of process tn any way upplied PDS sed by them ropriated or Mful direction the face of exercise the ntinuance of of law."

9. The facts and circumstances of the presen case also are similar to those in the above case and hence, this lourt finds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Sectior 528 of BNSS, 2023 by applying the same analogy and to quash t te proceedings against the petitioners herein. i --..." 'l i I I I I I I 1 i l 4 ETDJ crl.P-No.15640,2025

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.131 of 2022, on the file of learned Principat Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor, are hereby quashed

11. [Vliscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- P.PONAM KRISHN ASSISTANT REGIS R //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor, Nizama bad District 2. The Station House Officer, Armoor Police Station, Armoor, Nizamabad District 3 One CC to SRI ALLURI DIVAKAR REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies VM/PR HIGH COURT DATED: 2711112025 ORDER CRLP.No.15640 ot 2025 ,.r_r(r -) ,: 1r i() 1-t. * i l lric i, j 'l ir; )Llh i DfiI t. ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION q