The High Court · 2025

2. Sri. M. Dathadri, S/o Hanmandlu, Occ. Deputy Tahasildar (CS) Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. Pin.503001 ...Respondents/Complainant 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 impugned proceedings in C.C.No.1564 of 2024, on lhe file of the ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circu'mstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to Grant interim stay of all further proceedings in proceedings in C.C No. 1564 ot 2024, on the file of the ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class at Nizamabad, including appearance and.attendance of the petitioners/ Accused Nos. 1 to 3, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing he Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing he arguments of Mr GAJE RAGHU, Advocate for the Petitioners and lVr JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behal' rf Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREEN{VAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.16294 of 2025 Datez 09.12.2025 Between: Abdul Mateen and two others AND ...Petitioners The State ofTelangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and another ...Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.l564 of 2024, on the file of leamed II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.l to 3, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short'lPC') and Section 7 read with Section 3(2) (e) (0 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act').

2. Heard Sri G.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.V.Jithendar Rao, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent NoJ. .r/ I 2

3. The specific allegation against the petitionerT rccused is that he has procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries ar :heaper rate to sell the same lor profit and on03.04.2024 at about I i:00 hours, the petitioner was lound in possession of 8 plastic brLl s of PDS rice weighing approximately 4.65 quintals

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without there being any complaint fiom any beneficiary, alleging that the rice was procured deceptivety or ui h a criminal intent and charging the petitioner for prosecution s untenable and improper. The altegations, even taken at h r face value cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Further. r ris Court, in Crl.P.Nos.5709 of 2019 and 3349 of 2015, while co sidering the same situation, categorically observed that the ollt rces alleged against the petitioners therein could not be ct rtinued and accordingly quashed the proceedings. The petiti,,ner is also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed t, quash the proceedings against the petitioner

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor srr ,mits that as per prosecution, the offences said to have been conr. ritted by the ',firigi 3 petitioner is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the EC Act and requested to pass appropriate orders.

6. Section 7 of the EC 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 I I supply from the dealer

7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025has considered the identical facts and observed that: "There is no averment indicating thot the pelitioner in. any way deceptively induced the benefciaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or the benertciury entrusted the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitioner and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violation of a lawful dieclion or contract. In the absence of essential factors, on lhe face of prosecation, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse ofprocess 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 528 of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein. I I 4

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allo",ed and the proceedings in C.C.No. 1564 of 2024, on the file c I leamed II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at {izamabad, against the petitioners/accused Nos. I to 3, are herebl quashed Pending miscellaneous applications, if ar. , shall stand closed. Sd/. ,. PONNA KRISHNA ASSiI ;TANT REGISTRAR i/TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The llAdditional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad, 2. The Station House Officer, Nizamabad Rural Police, N,z lmabad Dist. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the S :ate of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] 4. One CC to Mr. GAJE RAGHU, Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies RC/Sa Rs HIGH COURT DATED: 0911212025 ORDER CRLP.No.16294 o12025 t:hI lA L 1 1 IJ 202i * a,\ * -lr Ps )C Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is l\ Iowed. -W zf tfza I I I I I I