The High Court · 2025

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

2. Sn P. Nikhil Raj, DeputyTahsildar( CS ), Bodhan, Rl/o. H.No.6-2-75, Kanteshwar. Nizamabad Town and District, Pincode. 503002. ...RespondenUComplainant 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 is therefore prayed that this Court may be pleased to quash the impugned proceedings in C.C.No. 03 of 2023, on the file of the Judicial I\,4agistrate of First Class at Bodhan. l.A. NO: 2 OF 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 lt is further prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No. 03 of 2023, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bodhan, including appearance and attendance of the petitioner/Accused, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 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 Petitioner and the Mr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of None appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA {'I TIYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREEITITVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 16O13 of 2025 DATE: 04.12.2025 Between : Dane (l) Damc Bass,araj AND Pe titioner/ accused Thc State of Tclangana, Rep. by its t ublic Prosecutor, High Court o[ 1'clangana at I{yderabad and another :ORDER: . Respondents This Cnntin:rl Pctirion has bect'r filed under Se,cti:r-r 52g Bharatiya Nagarik Surirksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ,BNSSJ by the petitioner/ accu scd sccking to quash the proceeclingr; in C.C.No.3 ol 2023 on the filc ol the Judicial Magistratc ol First Cl:lr;s at Bodhan, lor the offences undcr Scction 42O of thc IpC and Sectrtn 7A of Essential Commodities t\ct, 1955 (for short,'ES Act').

2. Heard I\{r. G. Raghu, Ie:rrned counsel for the re titioner, and Mr. Jithendar Rao Vceramalla, Iearned Additional )Lrblic prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted -hat the specific allegation against thc petitioncr is that he procurecl p)S rice from the i , i i I I l 2 beneficiaries at a cheaper rate in order to se, it for profit a,,d that he was found in possession of 10. 10 Quinrals of pDS Rice 3.1. He further submitted that without there being any complarnt from any beneficiary alieging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging the petitioner lor prosecution is untcnablc and improper' The allegations on their facc value cannot be sustainccl against the petitioner. Further, this Court in Crl.p.No.S7O9 of 2019 and 3349 of 2015, while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the offences alleged against the petitioner therein cannol be continued ald quashed the proceedings. The petitioner is also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional public prosecutor submitted that as per prosecution, the offence said to have been committed by the petitioner is cheating ard violation of Section 7 and g of ES Act and requested to pass appropriate orders.

5. Sections 7 ald g of ES Act contemplate that aly person contravenes rvith the production, supply, distribution arrd trade of essential commodities or abetment in this regard, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioner has procured pDS rice from the beneliciaries after supply from the dea.ler. l r. €q6:. 1{l-':r.!r{trq-7 ,, .. '/ / .,

6. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.p.N >.7227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that: "There is no a!,crmcnl rr.r<licating that the pctitic,r.r,;.rn any rvi.ry deceptivelv induced the beneficiaries to parr ,,r.irlL ihc supplicd PDS rice or lhe bencllcian, cntrustcd the pDS ric.t ;,urchased by lhem with the pctitioner and they dishonestly misr p rropriated or converted to thcir orl'n use or uscd it rr.r violirlr )l of :r la\r/ful direction or contract. In the absence oI esserltitrl rL .rors;. on thc face of prosecution, this Cour-t finds it to be .i fil i ,.sr to excrcrse the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 1023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the pctiriolL:. is irouse of process of lau/'. 7 . The facts and circumstanccs o[ thc prcscnt ca;r also simiiar to those in the:Lbove case and hence, this Court trncls ir ro lre a 1l case to exercise juriscliction undc'r Section S28 of tlNSr lrr a;rpl-ving the same analog' and to quash the proceedings agair.sl th(t petitioner herein.

8. ' Accordinglv, the Criminal petition is; a I o ,r.cd and the proceedings i. C.C.I.lo.3 ol 20'23 on the file o[ the ,Jrr(l <rial Magistrate of First Class at Bodhar-r, against the petitioncr/acc. lu:cl, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, pcr-rding if any, shi Ii stand closcd SD/. B. REKHA RANI SISTANT REGISTRAR d /iTRUE COPY// \ sEcTtoN oFFtcER To,

1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bodhan. 2. The Station House Officer, Bodhan Police Station, Nrza'nabad District. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, State of Telangani , High Court Buitdings, at Hyderabad (OUT) I I I t I I t t !

4. One CC to Sri Gaje Raghu, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies DL )w tR TIIE S r, r]q 0rI rl\ \-' f-:, I c() \l \.-,. t HIGH COURT JSR, J DATED:0411212025 ORDER CRLP.No.16013 of 2025 I , : I I I t : Ei ! I I I ; : , ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ( $