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 151 of 2019 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bodhan in so far as petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the ctrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimrnal 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. 151 ol 2019 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bodhan 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 Petitioner and of Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for Respondent no.2 The Court made the following: ORDER 1C I I I I i t I i I I i IN THE HIGI{ COURT FOR THESTATE OII I'8L,\NGANA AT HYDERABAD .fHE HONoUIIABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREI,]\I\/AS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.15903 of' 1025 Date:03.12.2025 Retu'een: Slraik Babu and another AND iletr tl o1lers 'l'he State o1' Telangana, Itcp. by the Public I)rosccutor, High Court ruL I I]'derabad tirr thc State ol'Telangana and anothcr rcspondents ORDER Titis Clinrinal I)etition has been filed seekir g to cluash the proceedings in (l.C.No. I 5I of 2019, on the filc ol- ltrr lccl principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bodhan *,hcrein rhe pctitioners u,ele arayed as accused Nos.1 and 2, I .1. the olJcnces punishable under Scction 420 of the Indian penal (lcclc, Ig60 ancl Scction 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 2. Heard Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned corrnsel fbr the petitioners and Mr.V.Jithendar Rao, learned Acltli.ional public Prosecutor for respondent No. I . .-_.-- 2

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submits that the specific allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 is that they have procured PDS rice from the benetlciaries at cheaper rate to sell the samc lor profit ar.rd on 13.02.2019 at abour 20:00 hours, the petitioners were found in possession ol 33 bags ol pDS rice totalling I I .80 quintals.

4. He would further submitted that w.ithout therc being any complaint lrom any beneficiary, alleging thar the rice was procured decepl-ively or with a crirninal intent and char.ging the petitioners for prosecution is untenable and irnproper. The allegations, even taken at their face value cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Fufther, this Courl in Crl.P.No.5709 ol 2019 and 3349 of 2015 while considering thc sarne situation, categorically observed that the offences alleged againsl the petitioners therein cannot be continucd and quashed the procecdings. The petitioners are also entitled to the samc relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. Per contra, the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submits lfie( as per prosecution, the offence said to have been committed by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the E,ssential Commodities Act, 1955 and re,lLrested to pass appropriate orders

6. Section 7 and 8 of the Essential Cor.rrnodities Act contemplatc that any person contravenes u,ith thr: production, supply, distribution and trade of essential ct,nrmodities or abetment in this regard, is punishable. As per tlre prosecution, the petitioners havc plocured PDS rice fiorn th: beneflciaries after supply fron.l thc dealer.

7. A (looldinate Bench of this Court in Crl.l,.No.722l ol 2025 has considered the identical fbcts and observ:cl that "There is no avermcnt indicating that the p€ titioner ir1 any way deceptively induced the beneficiar es to pan rvith the supplied PDS rice or the beneficialr r:ntrusted the PDS rice purchased by them with the petiricner. and they dislionestly misappropriated or converlr)c to their own use or used it in violation of a lawful d n:ction or contract. [n the absence of essential factors, on the lacc of prosecution, this Courl finds it to be a f;t case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 ol BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law". The facts and circumstances of the present case also 8 similar to those in the above case and hence, this (lourt finds it 4 to be a t-rt case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 52g of BNSS by applying the samc analogy and to quash the proccedings against the petitioners her.ein.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Pctition is allorved and the proceedings in C.C.No.15 I of 20 19, on thc file of rhe leamed Principal Judicial Magistrate of F'irst Cllass at Bodhan, aqainst the petitioners/accused Nos.l and 2, are hercby quashed. l']ending miscellaneous applications, il an1', shall stanc] closed. To SD/- K.BHAVANI SWAMY A ISTANT REGISTRA //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER 1 The Judicial First Class lvlagistrate at Bodhan. 2. The Station House Officer, Bodhan Police Station, Nizamabad District. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana, at 4. Ohe CC to SRl, ALLURI DIVAKAR REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] PR/PSL (r"- -.,= ,'{oi ir{E Sil. ! r irE[ 2[?5 /,/ L ,r . | ),- i {:rrr.'r --a \ l-:' -.1, " ,; \l ;. :l ' lt )ii..,'/ HIGH COURT DATED:0311212025 ORDER CRLP.No.15903 of 2O25 l i I I I I.I I L i i i I I ! I I i ALLOWING THE CRL.PETITION "*&o