The High Court · 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 quash the proceedings in CC No. 643 of 2O1B on the file of the Honble Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bodhan in so far as Petitoners/Accused No.5 and 6. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings against the petitioners/Accused No. 5 & 6 in CC No. 643 ol 2018 on the file of the Hon,ble Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bodhan pending disposal of the main criminal petition and pass This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing he Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the argt ments of sri Aruri Divakar Reddy, Advocate for the petitioners and the Additior rr pubric prosecutor on behalf ofthe Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for tt r Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COU RT FOR THE STATE OF TE LANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEV! EADA CRIMINAL P ETITION No.17592 ot 2O25 Date:29.12.2025 Between: Syed Shebaz and another AND ... Petitioners The State of Telangana, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and another ... Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioners/accused Nos.5 and 6 ' seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.643 oI 2018 on the file of learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bodhan. 2 Heard Mr.Alluri Divakar Reddy, Iearned counsel for petitioners and Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 2

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioners stl specific allegation against the petitioners is tt i rmits that the t they have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheall rr ratd to sell the same for profit and on 03.05.2018, the petition,: s were found in possession of 6 quintals of PDS rice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners uould further submit that without there being any complai rt from any beneficiary, alleging that the rice was procured dec: rtively or with a criminal intent and charging the petitioners for 1 rosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations on th': r face value cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Furthet this Court in Crl.P.Nos.5709 of 2019 and 33493 of 2015 while rx nsidering the same situation, categorically observed that the offt nces alleged against the petitioners therein cannot be continue<l and quashed the proceedings, The petitioners are also entitlerl to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedinr; ; against the petitioners.

5. The learned Additional Public Proserr utor submits that as per prosecution, the offence said to have b: :n committed by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Se< tion 7 of the I I \ ,,.|,. J Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and requested to pass appropriate orders.

6. Perused the material available on record. 7. Section 7 of the Essential Commodities 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 from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer. B, A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl'P.No.7227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that: t ) 'There is no averment.indicating that the petitioners 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 petitioners and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violation of a lawful direction or contract. ln 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 petitioners is abuse of process of law." L 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 Secticr 528 of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash th : proceedings against the petitioners herein.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is a lowe( and the proceedings in C.C.No.643 of 2018 on the file of lrr rrned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bodhar against the petitioners-accused Nos.5 and 6, are hereby quasr :d. Pending miscellaneous applications, if a r I, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPYII Sd/,I ,. PONNA KRISHNA ASSI iTANT REGISTRAR /-^ SECTION OFFICER

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bodhan, Nizamabad I )istrict 2 The station House officer, Bodhan porice Station, Nizanr; bad District 3 Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, High court for the !l ate of rerangana at 4. One CC to Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] 1 I t HIGH COURT ETD, J DATED: 2911212025 ORDER CRLP.No.17592 of 2025 ,oR THE S t4 o(, a I 4 tt1 7076 z * ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION t Ya.t