The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS 2023 piaying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the proceedings in CC No.269 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Yellareddy in so far as petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS 2023 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 fu(her proceedings against the petitioners/Accused No. 1 & 2 in CC No.269 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Yellareddy pending disposal of the main criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr ALLURI DIVAKAR REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of 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 t OLANGANA AT HYDERABAD TIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SR-EEi\ IVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.16457 of ,'l 25 Date:11.12.2025 Between: Andhe Manohar and another ANI) ...Petitioners fhe State of -felangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Courl at HyderabaC lor the State of Telangana and another .Respondents ORDIIR This Criniinal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.269 of 2025, on the file of I: rmecl Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Yellareddy, wherein t re petitioners were arrayecl as accused Nos. I and 2, for the offenc :s punishable under Sections 3 1 8(4) ol BNS Bharariya Nyaya San r ta, 2023, (for short 'BNS') and Section 7 of the Essential Conr nodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act'). 2 Heard Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned c,t msel for the petitioners and Mr.V.Jithendar Rao, learned Adc i ional public Prosecutor for respondent No. I . 2

3. The specific allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 is that they have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the satne for profit and on 05.08.2025 at about 10:00 hours, the petitioners were found in possession of 65 bags of PDS rice weighing approximately 32 quintals

4. Leamed counsei for the petitioners would submit that rvithout there being any complaint from any beneficiary, alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging the petitioners lor prosecution is untenable and improper. '[he allegations, even taken at their face value cannot be sustaincd against the petitioners. Further, this Court in Cr1.P.No.5709 of 2019 and 3349 of 2015 while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the offences alleged against the petitioners therein cannot be continued and quashed the proceedings. The petitioners are also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners

5. lhe 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 Essential 3 Commodities .Act, 1955 and requested to pas: appropriate orders

6. Sectirx 7 and 8 of the Essential Conrrr:dities Act contemplate that any person contravenes with th,: product'on, supply, distribution and trade of essential cor.r nodities or abetment in this rcgard, is punishable. As per tht rrosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS rice liom thc lcneliciaries after supply fiorrr the dealer

7. A Ccrordinate Bench of this Courl in Crl.l,\o.i22'l of 2025 has considcled thc identical facts and observc,l .hat { "'fhere is no avcrmenf indrcating that the petitioner r] lny way deceptivcly induced the beneficianes to part with th: supplied PDS rice or the bencficiary entrusted thc pDS rice purc rased by them with thc pctitioner and they dishonestly misappn,l riated or converted kr their orvn use or used it in violation li-a lauful direction or contraot, [n the absencc of cssential firclot ;. on thc face ofprosccution. this Court finds it to bc a fit casc tc exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 20li Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner is rbuse of process of law".

8. The facts and circumstances of the prescr. case also similar to those in the above case and hence, this (_ rurt finds it to be a fit casc to exercise jurisdiction under Scc ion 528 of 4 BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein.

9. Accordingly, the Criminai Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.269 of 2025, on the file of leamed Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Yellareddy, against the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPY/i SD/. B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR @ SECTION OFFICER

1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Yellareddy. 2. The Station House Officer, Gandhari Police Station, Nizamabad District 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUTI

4. One CC to Mr. ALLURI DIVAKAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies 6 HIGH COURT JSR, J DATED: 1111212025 {u l-\ a((f Lr- ,s\ -t? * s* b HC!H i' ORDER CRLP.No.16457 ot 2025 Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is I, lowed. \L