CRLP/16205/2026 of Mohammed Shahbaz @ Bablu Vs The State of Telangana on 5 October 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been hled bv the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.572 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate at Siddipet.

2. Heard Mr.Makkena Revanth, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosccutor for respondents.

3. The specihc allegation against the petitioners is that they have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to - sell the same for profit and on 13.03.2025, the petitioners were found in possession of i50 quintals ofPDS rice

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioners would 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 improper The allegations, even taken at their face value cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Further, this Courl, in Cr1.P.No.5709 of 2019, while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the offences alleged against the petitioners therein could not be continued and accordingly quashed the proceedings. The petitioners are also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners

5. The leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per prosecution, the offences said to have been committed by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act') and requested to pass appropriate orders.

6. Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of

- =.'s1!! !!: r?! r essential commodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the pet.itioners have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer. 7 . A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr1.P.No.7227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that: "There is no averment indicating that the petitioner in an1 way deceptivelv induced the beneficiaries to part w,ith the supplied PDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitioner and they dishonestly misappropriated or cttnvefied to their own L4se or usecl it in riolation of a lawful directioru or controct- ln the- absence of essential factors, on the face of prosecution, this Couri finds it to be a Jit cdse to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of ,9NSS, 2023. Thus, cantinuance ofproceedings against the petitioner is abuse ofprocess of law".

8. The facts and circumstances of the present case a|so similar to those in the above case and hence, this Court finds it to be a flt case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS by apply'1ng the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. g. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowecl and the proceedings in C.C.No.572 of 2025 on the fi1e of the Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate at Siddipet, against the petitioners/accused Nos.l ar,d 2, are hereby quashed.

-

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- K. BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /iTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate at Siddipet.

2. The station House officer, siddipet-l rown po ce station, siddipet District.

3. One CC to IVlr. l/akkena Revanth, Advocate tOpUC]

4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies KAIV/GNK @ To,

HIGH COURT DATED: 0511012026

ORDER

CRLP.No.16205 o12026 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION e FT o tl f C ds -$' 'l: t '+ E'o u- r? c A'CIH + b \, '1/ / tr' (:- .-Q