The High Court · 2025

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

2. Boragala Rajender, Sio Lingaiah, Age.47 years, Occ. Asst. Civil Supplies officer, Wanaparthy, Rl/o H.no.7 -2- 1 087 A,/42, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO 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 pleased to QUASH the proceedings in C.C. No. 688 of 2018 on the file of the court of the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Wanaparthy, against the petitioners/ accused. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the [V'lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant STAY of all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioner/ accused in C.C. No. 668 of 2018 on the file of the court of the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Wanaparthy, pending disposal of the above criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing 1l: Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arl uments of Sri C VIVEKANAND ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the SRI JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of tl-t Respondent No.'l and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER I // ,/ ,r1 TN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.17027 of 2025 Date: 18.12.2025 Between: Bhanuru Nagender and another AND ...Petitioners The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Couft ofTelangana at Hyderabad and another Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition is fited by the petitioners/accused Nos.l and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.688 ol 201 8 on the file of the learned Judiciat Magistrate of First Class at Wanaparthy

2. Heard Sri C.\i ivekanand, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.V.Jithendar Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 .

3. The specific allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos.l and 2 is that they have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at !r-\. -"1 2 cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and orr

18.04.2018, rhe \ petitioners were found in possession of 63.50 quirLt rls of PDS rice.

4. Learne,C counsel lor the petitioners rvou Lr submit that without therr: being any complairlt from an\ beneficiary, alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or ,, ith a criminal intent and charging the petitioners for prosecuticr and improper, 'Ihe allegations, even taken at tlrt is untenable ir face value cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Furthe" this Court in Crt.P.No.5709 of 2019 and 3349 of 2015 while cr nsidering the same sit.uatiorL, categorically observed that the oft ,nces alleged against the petitioners therein cannot be continuerl and quashed the proceedings. The petitioners are also entitlel to the sante relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedinrl against the petitioners.

5. The learned Additional public prosecuror srr rmits that as per prosecution, the offence said to have been cou r ritted by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Sections 7 md 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and reques I )d to pass appropriate orders. 6. Section 7 and 8 ol the Essential Comrr conternplatc that any person conlra\ cnes i^'ith t]r,: \ \ cdities Act production, I I I I supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities or abetment in this regard, is punishable' As per the prosecution' the petitioners have procured PDS rice from the beneltciaries after supply lrom the deaier. 7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crt'P'No'7227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that: "There is no averment indicating that the petitioner in any way deceptively induced thc benet-rciaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or the bcnellciar)' entrusted the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitioncr and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violation of a lawful direction or contract- ln the absence of cssential factors' on the face of proseoution, this Court finds it to bc a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 Thus' continuance of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law".

8. The facts and circumstances ol the present case also similar to those in the above casc 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' g. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.688 of 2018 on the file of the leamed 4 Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Wanaparthy against the petitioners/accused Nos.l and 2, are hereby quashed \, I \ \ Pending miscellaneous applications, if anr shall stand closed SD/. I.. BHAVANI SWAMY ASSI ;TANT REGISTRAR !+ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, '1 . The Judicial tvlagistrate of First Class at Wanaparthy. 2. The Station House Officer, Wanaparthy Town Police Stirl on, Wanaparthy. 3. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court fo' he State of Telangana [OUT]

4. One CC to SRl. (l VIVEKANAND Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies DDN Y\- 2 TF,E SIA ( '.1.. "Y * 2 ? rit i,;5 )Fsr:l-;.-.'. -- *\*. :-l-:_--l;. l z P / HIGH COURT JSRJ DATED:1811212025 ORDER CRLP.No.17027 of 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED q- U .ot'"\ fu"