The High Court · 2025

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana. 2 Chetcoori Venkateshwar Rao, S/o. Verraiah, Age. 45yrs, Occ. Asst civil supply officer, Nizamabad, Rl/o H. No 1-2-342161A, Domalguda, Hyderabad, Telangana State. ...Respondents 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 proceedings in CC No. 777 ol 2O1B on the file of the Hon'ble Additional. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bodhan in so far as Petitioners/Accused No. 1 and 2. t.A. NO: 2OF 202s 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 stay of all further proceedings against the PetitionersiAccused No. 1 and 2 in CC No. 777 ol 2018 on the file of the Hon'ble Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bodhan 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 / sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, Advocate for the petitioners anrl sri Jithender Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Re ;pondent No.1 none appeared for the Respondent No.2. Rao The Court made the following: ORDER HIGH COURT FOR TIIE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO cRIMINAL PETITI ON No.16991 of 2o.2s DATE:1 7.12.2025 Between : Amjad Hussain and another AND ....Petitioners/accused Nos. I ard 2 The State of Telangana, Igq Uy the public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of ielangana ald alother :ORD ER: ...Respondents This Criminal petition has been filed under Section 52g Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, .BNSS) by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.77Z of 2Ol8 on the hle of the Additiona-l Judicia-l Magistrate of First Class at Bodhan, for the offence under. Section 42O of the IpC and Section 3(2)(e) &(g) read with 7 and g of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, .EC ActJ and Section 17(e) of the Telangana State public DistribuLion System (Control) Order 2016.

2. Heard Mr. Alluri Divakar- Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Jithendar Rao Veerama_lla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1 State. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submittec that the specihc 3. allegation levelled against the petitioners is that the5' crocured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at a cheaper rate in order to s:11 it for proht and that t1lcy were found in possession of 44'30 Quintal s 'f PDS Rice'

3.1. He further submitted that without ttrere being t any benefrciary alleging ttrat the rice was procured r[' criminal intent and charging the petitioners for pros': and improper. The allegations on their face value ': against the petitioners. Further, this Court in Crl and 3349 of 20 15, while considering the same situ observed that the offences alleged against the petitit be continued and quashed the proceedings' The entitled to the same relief and, hence, prayed to qr'i ny comPlaint from ceptivelY or with a :ution is untenable nnot be sustained ?.No.57O9 of 2079 ation, categoricallY ner therein ca-nnot retitioners are al so .sh the Proceedings against the Petilioners. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor srL rmitted tltat as per 4. prosecution, the offence said to have been commitl€ I by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Section 7 ald 8 of EC I ct and requested to pass approPriate orders.

5. Sections 7 a'nd contravenes with the 8 of EC Act contemplat: that any person production, supply, distnt rtion and trade of or abetment in this re I rrd, is punishable' essential commodities As per the prosecution, the petitioners have procur:d PDS rice from the benehciaries after supply from the dealer' 3

6. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.p.No.72 27 of 2025 has considered t.l e identical facts and observed that: "There is no averment indicating that the petitioner in any way deceptively induced the beneficiaries to pa,rt with the supplied PDS rice or the beneficialz entrusted the pDS rice purbhaled by them with the petitioner and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violation of a lawfut direction or contract. In the absence of essential factors, on the face of prosecution, this Court finds it to be a frt case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section S2g of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continualce of proceedings against the pedtioner is abuse of process o[ law". 7 . The facts ald circumstances of the present case a-lso similar to those in the above case and hence, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 52g of BNSS by applying the same analory and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.777 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bodhan, against the peti tioners / accu sed Nos.l and 2, are hereby quashed. Miscellan eous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII essrsrair?ir?3 EEPIKA ISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER I To, 1 2 3 \#1: fl, tr{,., # sit#i'frdilfi'sffi l:'r,,r:r +:r nsa na a, ffi 33 8;[Srruri Divakar Reddv, Advocate [opuc] a r-f 6 i I: ,.rF o ii$ 6) 1 * r r .L9 n r'r ;c,Yi;', HIGH COURT JSR,J DATED: 1711212025 ORDER CRLP.No.16991 ot 2O25 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION @