The High Court · 2025

1. Miryala Srinivas. S/o. Narayana, Age 36 years, Occ. Coolie, R/o. ponkal Vittage, Mamaoa Manaai, liowlt ii"r#l ffiigu, Laxmanchanda Mandat, Nirmal District,Telangana State. -' " qv'sr Y rrr< 2. Abdul Sareem, s/o. Areem,.Age 29 years, occ. _Business, Rr/o. perkit viilage, 3. Shaik Abbas, S/o. l?rr], lgg 25 years, Occ..Driver, R/o. Diary farm, Armoor Mandat, Nizamabad ol.lri"t,t6i"nbi# strt". Nizamabad Town, Nizamabau bistrict, i""jrn'g;nu strtu AND ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 to 3 1 2 The State of Telanoana. *op,,O, the public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of 'l erangana K. Vinay, Sub lnspector of police, Mamada, Nirmal District, Telangana State ... Respondents Petition under Section E2g of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds or criminJ'petition, the High court mav be glgasgd.to quash the proceedinss in cc No. sei ii iizi Principal Judiciar Maoistrate or First crr.r ",i'i#ii"""i',n" Nirmdr in so f ar as petitioners/Accused No. i to 3. - 'rt l.A. NO:2 oF 202s Petition under section 52g of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds ot crim'nat'pe"tition, the iish c"r;i';;"ri" glg'1"qt-o grant stay of ail_further pr.""oing. tn" petitioners/Accused No 1 to 3 cc No. 597 ot 2021 on the fire td p;;;;;;r Judiciar Magistrate of First class at Nirmar pending disposar of the main crimin5i petition. "!uiri"t "f This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing he Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumen.r of sri Alturi Divakar Reddy, Advocate for the petitioners and sri Jithender Rao Vr eramalla, Additionar Public Prosecutor on beharf of Respondent No.1 and nor 3 appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO CRIMINAL PITITION No. 1 6997 of2025 DATE. t7.12.20/25 Between : Miryala Srinivas arrd two others AND The State of Telangala, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for tJle State of Telangana and a_nother Petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3 :ORDER: ..Respondents This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 52g Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, tsNSSJ by the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings in c.c.No'597 of 2o2l on the I e of the principal Judiciar Magistrate of First class at Nirmal, for the offences under Seclions 406 and 42o read. with 34 of the IPC arld Section 7-A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, 'EC Act').

2. Heard Mr. A_lluri Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, tearned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. I State.

3. t earned counsel for the petilioners submitted that the specific allegation levelled against the petitioners is that they procured pDS rice -/ 2 frorn the bcncficiaries at a cheaper rate in order tc lell it for profit and that they were lound in possession of 30 Quinta-ls oi PDS Rice'

3.1. He further submitted that without there beine any complaint from ary benefrciarl alleging that the rice was procured I eceptively or with a criminal intent and charging the petitioners for pros:cution is untenable and improper' The allegations on their face value :annot be sustained against the petitioners Further' this Court in Cr 'P'No'57O9 of 2Ol9 and, 3349 of 2015, while consiciering the same s t ration' categorically observed that the offences alleged against the petit oner therein cannot be continued and quashed the proceedings' Thr: petitioners arc also entitled to the same relief and' hence' prayed to qt ash the proceedings against the Pe1-itioners' The learned Additional Public Prosecutor sr bmitted that as per 4. prosecution, tJre offence said to have been commil.l :d by the petilioners is cheating and violation of Section 7 and 8 of EC \ct ald requested to pass appropriate orders'

5. Sections 7 and 8 of EC Act contemplrl e that any person contravenes rvith the production, supply, distri'rution and trade of essential cornmodities or abetment in this rt'1 ard' is punishable' As per the prosecution, the petitioners have proctL: ed PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer' -./

6. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025 h.as considered the identical facts and observed that: "There is no averment indicating that the petitioner in any way deceptively induced the beneficiaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or the beneficiar5r entrusted the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitioner and they dishonesfly misappropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violation of a lawful direction or contract. In the absence of essential factors, on the face of prosecution, this Court frnds it to be a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction pnder Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of lau/'.

7. The facts ard circumstances of the present case also similar to those in the above case and hence, this Court hnds 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 petiLioners herein.

8. Accordingly, tJ:e Criminal Petilion is allowed and t1le proceedings in C.C.No.597 of 2027 on the hle of the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nirma-I, against the peLitioners/ accused Nos. I to 3, arg hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. M.OSMAN ALI BAIG. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: e SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nirmal 2. The station House Officer, Mamada police Station, Nirmal 3 Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, High court for ihe state of rerangana at ALL u Rr Dr vAKA R RE D Dy, Ad vocate [o pu c] Hyderabad (OUT) \gr3, r?:"""r%ffi[' , .,1.:;Q:i:gi-l t IES1 )r. \) o O 2'l [t[ t?i v s ./;, i gsglg,i-!'i' HIGH COURT DATED:1711212025