The High Court · 2025

2. Sri. Ravi Kumar, Occ. Dy. Tahsildar (CS), Sirikonda, Nizamabad District, Pincode.503165. ...RESPONDENTS/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 quash the impugned proceedings in C.C.No. 79 of 2024, on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor. 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. 79 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor, including appearance and attendance of the petitioners / Accused No. 1 and 2, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing he Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumr: rts of Sri G. Raghu, Advocate for the Petitioner, Sri V. Jithendar Rao, Additional ,ublic prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. I and none appeared for the Il :spondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PET ITION No.17029 of 2025 Date:18.12.2025 Between: Shaik Hussain and another AND ...Petitioners The Statc ofTelangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court olTelangana at Hyderabad and another ...Respondents ORDER This Crirninal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. I and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in C'C.No'79 ol 2024 on the frle of the leamed I Additional Judicial Magistrate ol First Class at Armoor.

2. Heard Sri G.Raghu, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr.V.Jithendar Rao, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l.

3. The specific allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos.l .\- and 2 is that the] havc procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at 2 cheaper ratc t() sell the same for profit and on 25.I

1.2023 at about 09:00 AM, the petitioners were found in possessi, ,n of t0 plastic bags of I,DS rice weighing about 4.50 quintals.

4. I-earned counsel lor the petitioners w.oul,l subrnit that without therc being any complaint from anr beneficiary, alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or v, h a crirninal intent and charging the petitioners for prosecutiorr and improper. 'fhe allegations, even taken at tht:j is untenable - face value cannot be susta.ined against the petitioners. Fr.rrther.. his Couft in Crl.P.No.5709 ol 2019 and 3349 of 2015 while ccr sidering the same situation, categorically observed that the offl: rces alleged against the petitioners therein cannot be continuecl r nd quashed the proceedings. The petitioners are also entitled o the sarne relief and hence prayed to quash the proceeding:; against the petitioners.

5. The leamed Additional public prosecutor sul) nits that as per prosecution, the offence said to have been comr I tted by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Sections 7 rr Essential Cornrnodities Act, 1955 and reQuestrl rd 8 of the I to pass appropriate orders. I V J

6. Section 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, 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 beneficiaries after supply from the dealer

7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that: " l'here is no avcment indicating that the petitioner in any way deceptively induced the bcneficiaries to part wilh the supplied PDS rice or the benet'iciarv entrusred the PDS ricc purchased by them with the petitioner and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violation of a la*ful direction or contract. ln the absence of essential factors, on the face of prosecution, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Scction 528 of BNSS, 2023. 'fhus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process ol law".

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 analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. 4

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allou': I and the proceedings in C.C.No.79 of 2024 on the file of ttt leamed I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Arm I rr. against the petitioners/accused Nos.l and 2, are hereby quaslt C. Pending rniscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. To SD/- A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSiI JTANT REGISTRAR [(... SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY//

1. The 1st Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Arnrt or 2. The Station House Officer, Sirikonda Police Station, Nize nabad District. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the S1€ te of Telangana at Hyderabad

4. One CC to Sri G. Raghu, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies VH \r\_- HIGH COURT JSRJ DATED:1 811212025 {i \ J ( otJ I 'i i[[ ?i?5 * { ' lj pnrr-:' i + ORDER CRLP.No.17029 o12025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETIT!ON 6 -xe-o co\' \Y.4 .d\12fr