The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS., prayrng that in the circumstances stated rn the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC No. 65 of 2023on the file of the V Additional Judrcial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad in so far as petitione rs/Accused No. 1 and 2 l.A. NO:2OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C 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. 65 of 2023on the file of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad 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 Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1, and none appears for Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA I EVI EADA CRIMINAL P ETITION No.15561 of 2)25 ORDER:- 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Sectiorr 52g of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seetri rg the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/a<:r used Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.65 of 2023, on the file of learned A lditional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad, reg stered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 rlw 3z cf lndian penal Code, Section 7(1) of Essential Commodities Act 955.

2. Heard Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned :ounsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 as well as {i i Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional public prose, utor appearing for the respondent No.1- State.

3. The specific allegations against the peli oners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are that the petitioners herein havr: procured pDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to se the same for profit and on 24.11.2022 at about 15.00 hours, lhe petitioners were found in possession of 37 bags of pDS rice rv :ighing around

32.4GQqintals. 2 ETD,I Crl.P.No,15561_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 petit[oners herein is also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 5 The learned Additional Pubiic 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 reco!'d 3 ETO,] Crl.t No.1ss51_202s

7. Sections 7 of the Essential Commoditier; Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the pr: iuction, supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities c,r abetment in this regard, is punishable. As per the prosecution, th: petitioners have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer.

8. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.p llo.l227 of 2O2S I I has considered the identical facts and observed ti at:- "There is no averment indicating that the petitionu; in any way deceptively induced the beneficiaries to paft with tho ;upptied pDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice purcl ,sed by them with the petitioners and they dishones y misaj vopriated or converled to their own use or used it in viotation of a l; wfut direction or contract. ln the absence o/ essenfra/ factors, 't the face of prosecution, this Coutt fnds it to be a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, c )ntinuance of proceedings against lhe petitioners rs abuse of proce:,t of law.',

9. The facts and circumstances of the preserr 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 52g of BNSS, 2023 by applying the same analogy and to quash t re proceedings against the petitioners herein. 4 ETOJ cd.P.No-15s6r_2025

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.65 of 2023, on the flle of learned Additional Judicial t\4agistrate of First Class at Nizamabad, are hereby quashed.

11. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/-B.REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR lt-- t_-,.. SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The V Additional Judicial Magiskate of First Class at Nizamabad 2 The Station House Officer, Dharpally Police Station, Nizamabad Distrtct

3. One CC to Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana (our) 5 Two CD Copies BJLB/PSL lv / I I HIGH COURT DATED:26/1 1/2025 ORDER ,1*; 'T';-u);.. 4,.', /C: i'-)i; 2 rE[ 2025 2 r 'i-o\.? CRLP.No.15561 of 2025 \-_D ,, CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED 7\ \o\