The High Court · 2025

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

2. Sri. G. Vinod, Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Nandipet, Nizamabad District. Pincode.

503212. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS 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 F.l.R. No. 263 of 2025, on the file of the Nandipet Police Station, Nizamabad District, in so far as Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 1 to 3, are concerned and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. l.A. NO: 2OF 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 interim stay of all further proceedings in F.l.R. No.263 of 2025, on the file of the Nandipet Police Station, Nizamabad District, Nizamabad District., including arrest, appearance and attendance of the petitioners / Accused Nos. 1 to 3, 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 JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'l 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 JUSTTCE J.SREENIVAS RAO ON [.l Date:09.12.2025 Between: Shaik Javeed and two others The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, At Hyderabad and another AND .petitioners ...respondents ORDER This criminal petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.263 of 2025, on the file of Nandipet police station, Nizamabad District, wherein the. petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.l to 3, for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhirha, zoz3 (for shorr .BNS') and section 7 of Essential commodities Act, 1955 (for short .EC Act').

2. Heard Sri G.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.V.Jit\ndar \ respondent No.l. Rao, learned Additional public prosecutor for r) JSR, J Crlp'16281 2025

3. The specific allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 3 is that they have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 31.10.2025 at about 19:30 hours, the petitioners were found in possession of42 bags of PDS rice totalling 26.85 quintals.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would subnrit that without there being any complaint from any beneficiary, alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging the petitioners for prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations, even taken at their face value cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Further, this Court, in Crl.P.Nos.5709 of 2019 and 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 petitioners are also entitled to thr: same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. The leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per prosecution, the offence said to have been committed by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the EC Act and requested to pass appropriate orders. 3 JSR, J Crlp_16281 2025 6. Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities in this regard is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS rice from the benef,rciaries after supply from the dealer.

7. A coordinate Bench of this court in crl.p.No.7227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that: I \ "There is no averment indicating that the petitioner in any way deceptively induced the beneficiaries to part with the suppried pDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitictner and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violation of a lawful direction or contract. In the absence of essential factors, on the face of prosecation, this courtJinds il to be afit case to exercise the jurisdiction under section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law". t I

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 petitioners herein. 9- Accordingly, the criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in F.I.R.No.263 of 2025, on the file of Nandipet police 4 JS& J Crlp_16281 2025 Station, Nizamabad District, against the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 3, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.A.PRATHIMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR (? SECTION OFFICER l.TheStationHouseOfficer,NandipetPoliceStatioin,NizamabadDistrict' 2. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana [OUT]

3. One CC to SRl. GAJE RAGHU Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies. DDN HIGH COURT s DATED:0911212025 ORDER CRLP.No.16281 ot 2025 "tiig a -rR o i 6 ui:i: 7r5 * *' CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED