Advocate for the v. Jithendar Rao Additional Public Drosecutor on behalf of the

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. 1712 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class tMagistrate atZaheerabad against the petitioners/ accused. l.A. NO: 2 OF 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 STAY of all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioner/ accused in C C. No. 1 712 of 2022 On the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate atZaheerabad 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 arguments of Sri C. Vivekananc{, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Mr. V. Jithendar Rao Additional Public Drosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of None appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER 1 I t I I I I I I i IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.17508 of 2025 Date: 24.12.2025 Between: Jagadish Bhai S Patel and two others AND Petitioners State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana,at Hyderabad and another. Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.l7l2 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Zaheerabad.

2. Heard Sri C.Vivekanand, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.V.Jithendar Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l.

3. The specific allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos. I to 3 is that they have procured PDS rice from the bengficiaries at ) 2 cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 03.02.2022, the petitioners were found in possession of 270 quintals of pDS rice. 4. I-earned counsel for the petitioners wourd submit that without there being any complaint from any beneficiary, alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging the petitioners for prosecution is untenable and impropcr. The allegations, even taken at their face value cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Further, this Court in crl.P.No.S709 of 2019 and 3349 of 20i5 while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the offences alleged against the petitioners therein cannot be continued.and quashed the proceerlings. The petitioners are also entitled to the same ielief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. The leamed Additional Public prosecutor submits that as per prosecution, the offence said to have been committed by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential (lommodities Act, 1955 and requested to pass appropriate orders.

6. Secti,n 7 and 8 of the Essential commodities Act contemplate: ftu1 any person contravenes with the production, \ \ ''- ;\1 3 l,I I I I I t I i i , I t; i I Ii\ (, 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 entrusted 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 of prosecution, 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.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.1712 of 2022 on the file of the learned 4 ) Judicial lFirst class Magistrate at zaheerabad, against the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 3, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. T. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT RE \ \ecnoru oFFtcER To, p

1. The Judicial First Class t\Iagistrate Zaheerabad. 2. The Station House Officer, CPL Police Station, Sangareddy District. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, State of Tetangana, High Court Buildings, 4. One CC to Sri C. Vivekanand, Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CD Copisg at Hyderabacl (OUT) DL/SA \ \ t L'1, lt$ c L) 5t * * HIGH COURT DATED:2411212025 ORDER CRLP.No.17508 of 2025 I I I I I : t I ! I : 1 I : i I i I ! i i g 9\ ALLOWING CRIMINAL PETITION