The High Court · 2025

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad. 2 Sri. K.Swetha, D/o. Gangadhar, Aged 41 years, Occ. Deputy Tahsildar ( CS ), Makloor. Nizamabad District. Pincode .50321 3. 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 C.C.No. 1033 of 2021, on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise at Nizamabad. ...Respondents/Complainant l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P -C 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 C.C.No. 1033 of 2021, on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise at Nizamabad, including appearance and attendance of the petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 5, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition. ----- This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing, the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the argume. s of sri Gaje Raghu, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr.v.Jithender Rao, Additi.r al public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None appeared for th -. Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER -, IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STAT E OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUS'TICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITI ON No.l7l85 of 2025 Date: 19.12.2025 Between: Wanaparthy Niranjan and four others AND ...Petitioners The State ofTelangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court ofTelangana, at Hyderabad and another ...Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 5 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.l033 of 2021 on the file of the leamed Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise at Nizamabad.

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 spggihc allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 5 is that they have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at 2 cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on I .07.2020, the petitioners ',vere found in possession of 405.50 qr ntals of PDS

4. Lcarned counsel for the petitioners would ubnrit that without there being any complaint from any reneficiary, alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or wrt. a criminal intent and charging the petitioners for prosecution i untenable and improper. 'Ihe allegations, even taken at their lace value cannot be sustair.red against the petitioners. Further. rl is Court in Crt.P.No.5709 of 2019 and 3349 of 2015 while cons dering the same situation, categorically observed that the offetr es alleged against the petitioners therein cannot be continued ir d quashed the proceedings. The petitioners are also entitled l( the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings i gainst the petltloners.

5. The leamed Additional Public Prosecutor subrr its that as per prosecution, the offence said to have been comm I ed by the petrtroners IS cheating and violation of Sections 7 ol the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and requesterl to pass appropriate orders. 3

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: "There is no averment indicating that the petitioner in any way deceptively induced the beneficiaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or the beneficiary entrustcd the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitioner and they dishonestly 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 ofprosecution, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process 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 4

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is alklred and the proceedings in C.C.No.1033 of 2021 on the file rr 'the leamed Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise z t Nizamabad, against the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 5, are heretl quashed Pending miscellaneous applications, if an', shall stand closed To, SD/- B.REKHA RANI ASS ISTANT REGISTRAR \\ \\ //TRUE COPY// 'iL.r,o" oFFrcER

1. The Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Excise a Nizamabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Makloor Police Station, Nize t tabad District. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the sl€ le of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri Gaje Raghu, Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CD Copies Svsipsl HIGH COURT DATED:1911212025 ORDER CRLP.No.1718i of 2025 : I \ HE STA ft: i q 0tt ?u5 \ {, .- | I .+/. :;2' ALLOWING THE CRLP a-t