The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioner/A-4 in C.C.No.3396 of 2025 on the file of Xl Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class It/edchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, pending disposal of the present quash petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S VENU GOPAL, Advocate for the Petitioner and JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, -. Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respond,: tt No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER -7 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 16175 of2O2S DATE: L2.L2.2o2s Between : Peddi Raju Sukadev AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Ftbtic prosecutor, High Court for the State of Te langana at Hyderabad and a norher . Petitioner/ accused No.4 :ORDER: . Respondents This criminal perition has been rrled under Section 52g Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ,BNSSJ by the pe titioner/ accu sed No.4 seeking to quash the proceedings in c.c.No.3396 ot 2025 on the fire of the XI Additionar Judicial Magistrate of First class, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, for the offences under Sections 420 and I88 of the Ipc a,d Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ,EC Act,).

2. Heard Mr. S. Venugopal, learned counsel for ttre petitioner, and Mr' Jithendar Rao veeramala, learned Additiona.r public prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue raised in this criminal petition is squarely covered by the orders passed by this \l - CourtinCrI.P.No'5562of2023datcd24.||.2023:rrrtCrl.P.No.3483of 2025dated,T2.O3.2025andalsoplacedthecopyolt'lrsaldorders'The petitioner is also entitled for thc vely same r: ief Hence, the continuation of the procecdings against the petitione' is clear abuse of the process of 1au'.

4. The said submission has not disputecl lrv cartred Additional Public Prosecutor.

5. Taking into consideration the orders passe J by this Court in Crl.P.Nos.5562 ol 2023 and 3483 of 2025 atrd in vit r of the submission made by the both counsel, t}ris Cour.t iinds it to br: :l fit (]ase to exercise jrrrisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS to qulis I the proceedings against the pet it ioncr hcrein.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowcd z nd the proceedings inC.C.No.33g6of2025onthefileofthcXI\dditionalJudicial Magistrate of First Class, It4edchal Malkajgiri Di ; rict at Kukatpally, against the petitioner/ accu sed No.4, are hcrcby qrrr : hed' Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, sl-r rll stand closed' Sd/- Sd/- I\ . OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSI: |TANT REGISTRAR \-? SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Xl Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Ctass MedCl at lr/alkajgiri District at Kukatpally.

2. The Station House Officer, Bachupally Police Station, C I ,erabad. 3. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for he State of Telangana [OUT]

4. One CC to SRI S VENU GOPAL Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies 4lr {-_'.Y HIGH COURT DATED:1211212025 L? ORDER CRLP.No.16175 of 2025 % td- A^ N's \ \ * !' r:1 \! A,/o r +) '-;. ! ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION q \ --7./ THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CR IMINAL PETITION No.3483 o12025 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.3083 of 2022 on the file of Xl Special fVlagistrate of First Class under PCR Act-cum-ll Additional Junior Civil Judge, Hanamkonda, against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2.

2. Heard Mr.Abdul Azam Khan, learned counsel for petitioners and tMr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State.

3. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.3083 oI 2022for the offence under Section 420 of lPC. 4. Prosecution case in brief is that, on 20.05.2021 the respondent No.2lde facto complainant along with staff surprised the premises of Raj ENT hospital, Laxmipuram, Hanamkonda and their enquiries revealed that the Managing Director of the hospital is retailing the Remdesivir injection for Rs,30,0001 to Rs.35,000/- basing on the condition of the patients and from the medical shop, (15) Remdesivir injections with printed IVRP at Rs.3,490/- have been seized. Thus, alleging that with an intention to illegal gain, the 1't petitioner as Managing Director is selling the injection at higher 2 prices lodged the report. Whereupon, a case in () ime No.243 of 2021 was registered under Section 420 of lndian P: ral Code, 1860 (for short'lPC'), Section 7 of Essential Commoditie,Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act') and Section 51 of the National Disast :r lVlanagement Act, 2005 (for short 'DlV Act'). After investigation, cl arge sheet has been filed and the Court has taken cognizance for tlr : offence under Section 420 ot lPC.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits tli t the offence in the complaint is baseless. Even if the allegations rre believed as they are, does not constituting any offence within he meaning of cheating defined under Section 415 of lPC. That ape rl, investigating agency has not considered the fact that petitione r No.1 is only practicing Doctor and the petitioner No.2 is ar Employee in Pharmacy and the hospital is run by the third pr rty. He further pleads that at any stretch, there is nothing to dir ;close that the petitioners committed cheating in trading of Remde:; vir injections at higher price and in absence of any material evider ce proving the ingredients of cheating, the proceedings in Calenci r Case would be abuse of process and liable to be quashed. Fur:her by placing reliance on the judgment dated 24.11.2023 passed t y a co-ordinate bench in Crl.P.No.5562 of 2023 pleaded that in that case, considering similar allegations made against the petir oners/accused J therein, by noting statutory and settled legal positions held that the allegations does not qualify the alleged crime under Sections 420, 188 r/w. 34 of IPC and Section 51-B of the Dtr/ Act and acquitted them. He asserted that the petitioners herein stand in the same position, hence prayed for quashment of the proceedings.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would fairly admit that this Court, in Crl.P.No.5562 of 2023 had considered relatable accusations against the accused therein and held that Section 420 of IPC cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances and this proposition is applicable on all fours to the present case. I have perused the materials on record.

7. 8. As per the charge sheet, the witnesses LWs.1 to 3 are the Police Constables, who are part of the team surprised the premises on relevant day and their evidence is in line with the evidence of LWltde facto complainant and the statement in the Police report. The other witnesses referred to is the LW.4, who said to have made statement that he has paid Rs.35,0001 for the injection and also agreed to pay 34,000/- for the injection to be administered on his brother. These statements are demonstrating that the core of the accusations is sale of Remdesivir injection beyond Maximum Retail Price displayed on the injection. 4

9. ln this position the pertinent question hat arise for consideration is whether sale of the injection ber,ond lVaximum Retail Price would amount to cheating?

10. The offence of cheating is defined in Section ,l 5 of IPC which reads as follows: Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraululently or dishonestly induces the person so der; tived to deliver any property to any person, or to :onsent that any person shall retain any prop )rty, or intentionally induces the person so dec( ived to do or omit to do anything which he wourc not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and vt tich act or omission causes or is likely to cause ,lamage or harm to that person in body, mind, re,utation or property, is sald to "cheat".

11. Thus, to constitute an offence of cheating there shall be fraudulent or dis-honest inducement and the perso ts so deceived has to delivered any property and such an act shou d have caused harm to the person so induce in body, mind, reputatic n or property.

12. ln the instant case, even as per the st::ement of the witnesses, the specific names of the petitioners and t reir overt act in commission of offence are conspicuously missirrr . Further, the charge sheet is not disclosing as to collection : t any material reflecting the petitioners involvement in dis-hones inducement or deceptive act in trading the injection at higher price, \6136;r, there 5 is no material on record evidencing the roles of the petitioners in the hospital. 'l 3. The statement of LW.4 is evidencing that the [\rlanagement asked Rs.35,0001 for administering the injection for the treatment This direct demand is not making out any deceptive act or inducement on the witness to purchase the injection at Rs.35,0001 or Rs.34,000/-. That apart, no circumstance is found to atleast infer that, if the LW.4 was not under such inducement or deception would not have bought the injection at that price. Thus it is patent that, even after investigation the prosecution could not secure any legally acceptable material to show that the petitioners had committed an act within the scope of Section 415 of lPC. For these reasons, this Court finds that at any stretch the material placed on record IS making out an act of the within the scope of offence under Section 42O of IPC

14. Further, the coordinate bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.5562 of 2023, considering the similar circumstances held that the prosecution under Section 420 of IPC cannot be sustained and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners therein

15. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of Calendar Case proceedings against the 6 petitioners for the offence under Section 420 of IPC v'ould be abuse of process of law.

16. Resultantly, this Criminal Petition is allowecl and Calendar Case proceedings against the petitioners/accused llos.1 and 2 in C,C.No.3083 of 2022 on the file of Xl Special [/al istrate of First Class under PCR Act-cum-ll Additional Junior Civil Judge, Hanamkonda, are hereby quashed lVliscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall st rnd closed. JUSTICE N TUKARAMJI Date.12.03.2025 LK