The High Court · 2025

'1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana

2. Malavath Ravindhar, S/o. Surya, Age.41 years, Occ. Dy. Tahasildhar, R/o Manikbhandar, Nizamabad District, Telangana State. ...RESPONDENTS 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 CC No. 390 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor in so far as petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Seetion 528 qf BNSS praying that in the cireumstanceq stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings against the petitionersiAccused No.1 to 3 in CC No. 390 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor pending disposal of the main criminal petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Cnminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri ALLURI DIVAKAR REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER INTHE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TI LANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENI /AS RAO CzuMINAL PETITION No.t 7225of2lt 5 Date:22.12.2025 Between: Maimud Beg and two others AND Petitioners -lelangana, The State of Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State ofTelangana and another Respondents ORDER This Clriminal Petition is filed by the petiti, ners,/accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.fl, .390 of 2022 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Maq : trarc of First Class at Armoor

2. Heard Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned c,r rnsel for the petitioners and Mr.V.Jithendar Rao, learned Adc I ional public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 .

3. The specific allegation against the petitioners, a :cused Nos.l to 3 is that they have procured PDS rice from the t,r neficiaries at \ 2 cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 29.09.2022, the petitioners were found in possession of 38 quintals of PDS rice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that without there being any complaint from any benehciary, alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging the petitioners for prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations, even taken at their face value cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Fufther, this Court in Crl.P.No.5709 of 2019 and 3349 of 2015 while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the offences alleged against the petitioners therein cannot be continued and quashed the proceedings. The petitioners are also entitled to the same retief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petrhoners.

5. The leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per prosecution, the off'ence said to have been committed by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and requested to pass appropriate orders.

6. Section 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, I I ) \ a supply, distribution and trade of essential conr nodities or abetment in this regard, is punishable. As per the rrose cution, the petitioners have procured pDS rice from the I eneficiaries after supply from the dealer. 7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.l,. \o.122i of 2025has considered the identical facts and observec hat: "There is no averment indicating that the petitioner ir, rny lay deceptively induced the beneficiaries to part with thc jupplicd PDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the pDS rice pur: Lased by them with the petitioner and they dishonestly misapprcp iated. or converted to their own use or used it in violation o. r la*,ful dircction or contract. In the absence of essential factcr . on the face ofprosecution, this Court finds it to be a fit case t) 3xerclse the jurisdiction under Section 52g of BNSS, 202 .. Thus. continuance of proceedings against the petitioner rs buse ot. process of law".

8. The facts and circumstances of the presen case also similar to those in the above case and hence, this C,,urt linds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Se,r ion 52g of BNSS by applying the same analogy and ro quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. 9 Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allor,,:d and the proceedings in C.C.No.390 of 2022 on the file o1 he leamed \ t 4 Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor, against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/.AHSGOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G To, //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Morthad, Nizamabad District 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 4. One CC to SRI ALLURI DIVAKAR REDDY Advocate (OPUC) 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad (OUT) TPK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:22t12t2025 ORDER CRLP.N o1T22S ot 2O2S : -::-..-- rr._ ii /,,:li, -- ?] D8 1 t o ,9 ^?, \$.' 7r rQ CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWEI) \d 9q