The High Court · 2025

Pothuganti srinivas @ Paileila Srinivas, s/o Venkateswarru, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. j -393, Gandhinagar, Miryalguda Town, Nalgonda District. Macha Ravi, S/o Somaiah, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Driver of the Ashok Leyland Vehicle B.No.TS os rJE 6229, ivo [rrlurakara Kanarva viilage, Miryalguda Mandal, Presenfly Sundarnagar, tritiryalguda Town. Kethavath Koti @ Kotamma, W/o Saida, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Coolie Rlio. Kethavath Thanda (V), H/o Dilavarpur pO, Damarachiila (V), Natgonda District. AND 1 2 The State of Telangana, Rep by its pubtic ,r".""r;; State of.Telangana Hyderabad K. Srinivas, S/o Not known to the petitioners, Aged Major, bcc: A.S.l Miryalguda I Town Potice Station Nalgonda Diskict _ 5b8207. ];":::J":;: ...Respondent ...Respondent No.2/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 call for the records in cc No.409 . ol 2o2s on the file of Hon,ble Judicial First Class Magistrate at Miryqlguda and quash the same. l.A. NO: 2OF 202s Petition under Section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings against the petitionerJA-.r to A-3 in cc No.409 of 202s on the file of Hon'ble Judicial Fiist ctass Magistrate at Miryalguda, pending disposa'l 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 sri ch. Ravinder, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Additional public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER . IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE Oli TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JuSTICE J.SRET NTVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.167O4 o' 2o25 Date:15.12.2o25, Between: Pothuganti Srinivas and two others AND . . . Petitioners The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, At Hyderabad and another Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been hle 1 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4O9 of I 1025, on the hle of Judicial First Class Magistrate a- Miryalguda, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 3, for the offence punishable uu ler Sections 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhith 4 2023 (for short TINSJ and Section 7 of Essentia-l ( ommodities Act, 1955 (for short EC Act'). - . r1- i.: --\-=lq \ .\ 2 JS& J Crlp _16704_2025 Heard Sri Ch.Ravinder, learned counsel for the 2 petitioners and Mr.V.Jithendar Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1.

3. The specific allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 is that they have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 12.01.2025 at about 07.OO hours, the petitioners were found in possession of PDS rice totalling 5O quintals.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that without there being any complaint from any benefrciary, 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 2O19 and 3349 of 2015, while considering the same situation, o JSR, J Crlp_16704 2025 categorically observed that the offer ces alleged against the petitioners therein could not )e continued and accordingly quashed the procr: :dings. The petitioners are also entitled to the sarr e relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. The learned Additional public prosecutor submits that as per prosecution, the o1I:nce said to have been committed by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Section 7 of t]ne l1 C Act and requested to pass appropriate orders.

6. Section 7 of the EC Act contemple te that any person contravenes with the producti rn, supply, distribution and trade of essential corr modities in this regard is punishable. As per the .rrosecution, the petitioners have procured pDS r1l ) from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer 4 I JSR, J Crlp-16104 _2025

7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that: "There i.s no auerment indicating tLnt the petitioner in ony uag deceptiuelg induced the benefictaries to part uith the supplied PDS rice or the benertciary enttusted the PDS rice purchnsed bg them uith the petitioner dnd theg dishonestlg mi-sappropriated or conuerted. to their own use or used it in uiolation of a latuful direction or contract. In the absence of essentiol factors, on the face of prosecution, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise the juri-sdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of lout".

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 analory and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein.

9. Accordingly, the Crimina1 Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.4O9 of 2025, on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Miryalguda, against 5 JSR, J )rlp_16704 2025 the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, 1re herebY quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- P PONNA KRISHNA ASSI( TANT REGISTRAR -7 r\ \.i ' SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Judicial First Class tvlagistrate at Miryalguda. 2. Two CCs to the puOric ptotJc'tor, High Court for tne St;r e of Telangana at 3. O;; CC to Sri Ch. Ravinder' Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies HYderabad [OUTI TTSA<amk HIGH COURT DATED:1 511212025 i-i);:1 t-, :i .J o C) 0 6 lrl ?026 .iJs\t;, \i -:. ii r, ORDER GRLP.No.16704 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION .,64 * &'-"