The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section S2B of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to calt for the records in FIR No.51 ot 2o2s on the file of Miryalguda Rural Police Station, Nalgonda and quash the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 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 stay of all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 in connection with FIR No.51 of 202b on the file of Miryalguda Rural police Station, Nalgonda, pending disposal of the main criminal petition. 7 This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing he Memorandum of Grounds of criminat Petition and upon hearing the a-t uments of Sri cH RAVINDER ,Advocate for the petitioners and Sri. Jithende' Rao Veeramalla the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Resporr ent No.1. and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THB STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SRBENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITTON No.17076 of 2025 Datc:18.12.2025 Between: Narendra Dhanavath and two others AND ...petrtloners The State ofTelangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another ...respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.5l of 2025, on the file of Miryalaguda Rural Police Station, Nalgonda, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. I to 3, for the ollences punishable under Section 318 (4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act').

2. Heard Sri CH.Ravinder, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithendar R?o Veeramalla, learned Additional Public \ Prosecutor for respondent No. I I 2

3. The specific allegation against the petitione 's/accused Nos' I to 3 is that they have procured PDS rice from tli: beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and o:t 31'01'2025' the petitioncrs were found in possession 55 quintals o PDS rice' Learned counsel for the petitioncrs would r;r bmit that without

4. there being any complaint from any benefician' alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal i tent and charging the petitioners lor prosecution is untenable rr d irnpropcr' '[-he atlegations, even taken at their f-ace value cltt not be sustained against the petitioners. Further, this Court, in 'lrl'P Nos'5709 ol- 2019 and 3349 of 2015, while considering t[ : same situation' categoricallv observed that the offences all:ged against thc petitioners therein could not be continued and ac;ordingly quashed the proceedings. The petitioners are also entitle l to the samc relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings agair: " the petitioners' Tl.re leamed Additional Public Prosecutor ubmits that as per

5. prosecution. the offence saicl to have been ' ommitted by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Section 'r of the EC Act and requested to pass appropriate orders' / ___:7 a

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 the dealer

7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.p.No.7227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that: "1here is no dverment indicaling tlnt thc petilioner in u y v.dv deceptively induced the bene./iciaries to part i,ith the supplietl pDS rice or the benejiciary entrusled the PDS rice purchasecl lry them v,irh the petitioner and they dishonestly misappropriatecl or co |erted to their own use or used it in violalion of a law'[ul clirection or contracl. In the ahsence of essential factors, on the ./oce of prosccution. this Courtfnds it to be aft case to exercise the itrisdiction undar Section 528 of BNSS, 2023- Thus, conlinuqnce of proceedings ageinst the petilioner is abuse ofprocess of 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.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in FIR No.5l of 2025, on the file of Miryalaguda Rural Police Station, Nalgonda, against the petitioners/accu sed Nos.1 to j. are hereby quashed. 4 ') Pending miscellaneous applications, if i ny' shall stand closed St /. B. REKHA RANI ASSIIJ ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// t 'rSr ION OFFICER To, 1 . The State of Telangana,, Rep by its Public Prosecutor' Hir h Court for the State of Telangana HYderabad

2. The SHO triliryalguda Rural Police Station' Nalgonda Disit ct' 3. One CC to SRl. CH RAVINDER Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the I 'tate of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT].

5. Two CD CoPies ry- / HIGH COURT JSRJ DATED:1 811212025 ;t' cr 11 t'<. ) 'i:{ s i :.i c) rl. \q.,\ \ CRLP.No.17076 ot 2025 \\ Hglu r5j. s -.1" CRIMINAL PEITITION IS ALLOWED AND THI: PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS /ACCUSED NO. 1 to 3. ARE HEREBY QUASHED. \v 1^ 36) c*