The High Court · 2025

The State of Telanoana Rep. by the public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the St5te oi fetjngiria - P I elangana State. ,,Nrkhil [aj,. Dy.Tashitdar (CS), Varni, R/o. Varni, Nizambad Drstrict, ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 529 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in cc No. 1g5 ol 2024 on the fire of the Additional Judiciar Magistrate of First crass at Bodhan in so far as petitioners/Accused No. 1 and 2. LA. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under section 52g of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings against the petitioners/Accused No. 1 and 2 in cc No. 1gs of 2024 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class at Bodhan pending disposal of the main criminal petition. -;--.1+.i This Petit on coming on for hearing, upon perusing he lv,lemorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the ar(lr ments of sri AIruri Divakar Reddy, Advocate for the petrtioner, sri Jithen(r r Rao Veerama a, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondr., rt No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No 2 The Court made the fo owing: ORDER HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT IIYDERABAD THE HOIYOURABLE SRI JUSTICI J. SREENTVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITIO N No. 171O9 ot 20/25 DATE: 1

4.12.2o2s Between : Maimood Baig @ Fiddu AND .... Petitioners/ accused Nos. I and 2 The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telalgana a-nd another :ORDE R: ....Respondents This Criminal petition has been filed under Section S2g Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, .BNSS,) by the pelitioners/ accused Nos.l and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in c'c'No' 185 of 2024 on the I e of the Additional Judicia.r Magistrate of First Class at Bodhan, for the offence under Section 42O of the IpC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for strort, ,EC Act,).

2. Heard Mr. Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additiona-l Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. I State.

3. Iearned counsel for tJle petitioners submitted that the specihc allegation levelled against the petitione.s is trrat they procured pDS rice 2 -:::,J from tJle beneficiaries at a cheaper rate in order to I el1 it for profit ald that they were found in possession of 249.70 Quintal r of PDS 'Rice.

3. 1. He further submitted that without there beinS: Lny complaint from any beneficiary alleging that the rice was procured ,1 :ceptively or with a criminal intent and charging the petitioners for pros::ulion is untenable and improper. The allegations on their face value 'l mnot be sustained against the petitioners. Further, this Court in Cr.. ?.No.5709 of 2019 and 3349 of 2015, while considering the same sit: ltion, categorically observed that the offences alleged against the petit:< ner therein calnot be continued ar-rd quashed the proceedings. The 1 etiLioners are also entitled to the same relief and, hence, prayed to qua sh the proceedings against the petitioners.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor su L nitted that as per prosecution, the offence said to have bcen committr:< by the petitioners is cheating and violaLion of Section 7 and 8 of EC l', t and requested to pass appropriatc orders.

5. Sections 7 and 8 of EC Act contemplat,: that any person contravenes with the production, supply, distrib u jon and trade of essential commodities or abetment in this regzu d, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petiLioners have procurt t PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer. J

6. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025 }: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 benehciary entrusted the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitioner and they dishonestJy misappropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violation of a lawful direcLion or contract. In the absence of essential factors, on the face of prosecution, this Court l-rnds it to be a fit case to exercise the jurisdicLion under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuarce of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law".

7. The facts and circumstarces of the present case a.lso similar to those in the above case and hence, tl.is Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS by applying the same analos/ and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.185 ot 2024 on the frie of the Additional Judicia-t Magistrate of First Class at Bodhan, against the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2, are hereby quashe,{. Miscellarreous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/-B.REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR t T o //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER '1. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Ctass at Bodhan 2. The Station House Officer, Varni police Station, Nizamabad District 3 Two CCs to Hyderabad.I the Public Prosecutor. Hioh Court for the State of Telangana at OUTl _- =::r.qF=r!i+-,qt '!/ ,/,

4. One CC to Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies VH/I'S[- I HIGH COURT DATED: 1811212025 t \ ORDER CRLP.No.171O9 of 2025 I \ h\E S C) t o o itl [ ?il6 * fspl"t'C Z P .d., * t I ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION