The High Court · 2025

2. Sri. G. Gangadhar, ASl, Nizamabad Town Vl P.S, Nizamabad District Pincode. 503001. ..RESPONDENTS/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 C.C.No. 486 ol 2025, on the file of the llAdditional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad. 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 proceedings in C.C. No. 486 ot 2025, 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 the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri GAJE RAGHU, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, 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 OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENTVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.16974 of 2o25 Date: L7-L2-2O25 Between: Md. Sumer Kharr and others AND .. Petitioners The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, At Hyderabad and another ..Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petitior-r has bcen hled seckiire to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.486 ol 2025, on ltre file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class ai Nizamabad, wherein the petitioners rvere arrayed as acc:rrsccl Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Ser:lir,rn 318(a) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023, and Sectior.r 7 r lw 3{21(el, (f) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (ior strort 'EC Act') and clause L7(el Telangana State Public Distribution System Control order 2O16. 2 JSR, J Crlp _l 697 4 _2025 2. Heard Sri G.Raghu, k:arnerl counsel for the petitioners and Mr.V.Jithendi.rr Rao, Iearned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1.

3. The specific allegation against petitioners/accused Nos. I to 3 is that ttrey have procured PDS rice frorn the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 10.12.20'24 at about 2O.00 hours, the petitioners were found in possession of 80 bags of PDS rice totalling 38.75 quintals.

4. Learned counsel lor the petitioners would submit that without there being any complaint fron-r any beneficiarSr, alleging that the rice '"vas procured deceptively or w'ith a criminal intent and charging the petitioners for prosecution is untenable and improper. Thc allegations, even taken at their face value cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Further, this Cor.rrt, in Crl.P.Nos.57oc) ol 20i9 and 3349 of 2O15, while considering the same sitlr;rtion, categorically observed that the offences alleged agirinst the petitioners therein could nol. be continuerl and at:cordingly quashed 3 JSR. J C'rlp 16974 2025 the proceedings. The petitioners are a-lso entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. The learned 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.

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 lrom the beneficiaries after supply from tirc clealer.

7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.72'27 of 2O25 has considered the identical facts and obscrved that: "'fhere is no auerment indicating that the petitioner in ang tuag cleceptiuely induced the benejiciaries to port with lhe supplted PDS ice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice purch.ased by them with the petitioner and they dtshonesttg misapp*tpiaterl or conuerted to their ou)n ttse or used. it in uiolation o-f o latuJitl clirection or contract. In the absence of essential facto, s, on the face of prosecution, this Court finds itio be a 1tt io..r.- n, ur.r"i.. the ju*diction under Section 528 "1 aNis,-'iiZ.:t. Thus, 4 JSR, J C.rlp 16974_2O25 continuarLce of proceedings agci.nst the petitioner is abuse of process of law".

8. The facts and circurnstarlces of thc present case also similar to those in the above case and irence, this Court hnds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS by applying the same analogr and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners hercrn.

9. Accordingiy, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.486 of 2025, on the file of II Additional Judiciai Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad, against the petitioners/accuseci Nos. 1 io 3, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stald closed. SD/. P PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRA //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 The llAdditional Judicial Magistrate of Frrst Class a The Station House Officer. Police Station, Nizamabad Town-Vl Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (oUT) One CC to SRI GAJE RAGHU Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies izamabad 4 5 TPK]PSL \y HIGH COURT DATED: 1711212025 ,(HE SIA 0(J 2 { JAtl zffi * * ORDER CRLP.No.16974 ot 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED @ a t la.b ,