The High Court · 2025

Judgment

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

Sri. B. Sanjeev, Sub-lnspector,, Nizamabad Town lV P.S, Nizamabad District Pincode.503001 ...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 jn C.C.No. 1725 ol 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magrstrate of First Class, Special f\,4obile Court at Nizamabad. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that rn the circumstances stated rn the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitron, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No. 1725 of 2023, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court at Nizamabad., including appearance and attendance of the petitioner/Accused, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing 1le Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argLt tents of Sri GAJE RAGHU ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Jithender F ao Veeramalla the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respon I )nt No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER wFY THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15443 ot 2025 ORDER:- 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused C.C.No.1725 of 2023, on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special l\4obile Court at Nizamabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of lndian Penal Code, Section 7(1 ) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955

2. Heard Sri G.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused as well as Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1- State.

3. The specific allegations against the petitioner/accused are that the petitioner herein had procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on

10.11.2023 at about 19.15 hours, the petitioner was found in possession of 26 bags of PDS rice weighing around 7.5 Quintals. \ \ 2 EIOJ Crl.P-No 15443 2025

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would fur l er submit that without there being any complaint from any berrr: iciary alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a crirr inal intent and charging the petitioner for prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations on their face value cannot be sus ained against the petitioner, Further, this Court in Crl.P.Nos.57r) ) of 2019 and 33493 of 2015 while considering the same situatior , categorically observed that the offences alleged against the peli ioners therein cannot be continued and quashed the proceedings. The petitioner herein is also entitled to the same relief and he,r ce prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor su: nitted that as per prosecution, the offence said to have been cor mitted by the petitioner is cheating and violation of Sections 7 cf the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and hence requested to pe : s appropriate orders.

6. Perused the material available on record.

7. Sections 7 \ thdt any person of the Essential Commodities A<; contemplate contravenes with the produ: :ion, supply, EIOJ Crl-P.No.15443_2025 distribution and trade of essential commodities or abetment in this regard, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioner had procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the d ealer.

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 paft with the supplied PDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitioners and they dishonestly misappropriated or conveded to their own use or used it in violation of a lawful direction or contract. ln the absence of essential factors, on the face of prosecution, this CoutT finds it to be a fit case lo exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of 8NSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioners is abuse of process of law."

9. The facts and circumstances of the present case also are 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 BNSS, 2023 by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.1725 of 4 Fr0,l Crl.P N0.15443 2025 ( 2023, on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate r f First Class, Special Mobile Court at Nizamabad, are hereby qua ;hed. 11 Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall s :and closed. 1/TRUE COPY// SD/, '.C.SULEKHA DEVI AS SIt.TANT REGISTRA& \\ -..=a. { iECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Additional Judicial First Class lvlagistrate at Nizamab )d, Nizamabad District.

2. The Court of the Judicial lvlagistrate of First Class,Specia Mobile Court at Ntzamabad

3. The Station House Officer, Nizamabad lV Town Police {) ltion, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District.

4. One CC to SRl. GAJE RAGHU Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two Copies to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for ll e State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies PK/P S L Y+- HIGH COURT DATED:2511112025 CRLP.No.15443 ot 2025 1=-- -\tii: Slh ^ c() I I t li ,Iil rii?i .\ ^* ' j/ : 'tlsr'.,'-::, '1' '' i-=--:-- --.'- ,/ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION q, coqce'Lh,