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 C.C.No.357 of 2O25 on the file of ll Additional Judicial First Class Magistiate Adilabad against the petitioner/Accused No.2 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. l.A. NO: 1 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.357 of 2O25 on the file of ll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Adilabad including the appearance of the petitioner, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition and &EL*--,.- ,/ .- pass such other order or orders as this Hon,bre court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. This petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri soMA RAV, KrRAN REDDy, Advocate for the petitioner and the sri Jithender Rao veeramarta, Additionat pubric prosecutoron beharf of the Respondent No.1, and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the fottowing: ORDER i I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF AT ERABAD GANA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO MIN TTTI N 89 of Date: 11.12.2025 Between: M.Javeed M.Yusuf Sheikh AND Petitioner The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High court for the State of Telang ana at Hyderabad and another ...respondents ORDER This criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in c.c.No.357 of 2025, on the file of Iearned II Additional Judicial First class Magistrate, Adilabad, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.2, for the offences punishable under Section 3 18 (4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

2. Heard Mr.soma Ravi Kiran Reddy, learned counser for the petitioner and Mr.Jithendar Rao veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l. \ \ 2

3. The specific allegation against the petitionerr'accused No.2 is that he has procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 05.1 I .2024, the petitioner was found in possession of 5 quintals of PDS rice'

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would 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 petitioner for prosecution is untenablr; and improper' The allegations, even taken at his face value cannot be sustained against the petitioner. Fufther, this Courl, in Crj-P.Nos.5709 of 2}lg anrJ 3349 of 2015, while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the offences alleged against the petitioners therein could not be continued and accordingly quashed the proceedings. The petitioner is also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner'

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per prosecution, the offences said to have been cornmitted by the petitioner is cheating and violation of Section 7 rlf the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and requested to pass appropriate orders' I \ * 3

6. Section 7 of the Essential commodities Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioner has procured pDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer.

7. A coordinate Bench of this courr in crl.p.N o.7227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that: "There is no averment indicating that the petitioner in any way deceptively induced the beneficictries tt part with the supptiecl pDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the pDS rice purchasect by them with the petitioner and they dishonestry ruisappropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violation oJ a lavful direction or contract. In the absence of essentialfactors, on the-face of prosecution, this Court/inds it to be afit case to exercise the jurisdiction under section 52g of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceecrings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law".

8. The facts and circumstances of the present case also similar to those in the above case and hence, this court finds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 52g of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein.

9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in c.c.No.357 of 2025, on the file of learned II t t 4 Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adilabad, against the petitioner/accused No.2, are hereby quashed' Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- A.PRATHIMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR t' SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The ll Additional Judici alFirst Class Magistrate at Adilabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Jainath Police Station, Adilabad District. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] I I

4. One CC to SRI SOMA RAVI KIRAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies NVB HIGH COURT JSR,J DATED;1111212025 ORDER CRLP.No.16489 of 2025 o ( * '11{t: 1 6 ijEI 2025 {. ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION (@