CRLP/15971/2026 of MANDA RAGHOTHAM REDDY Vs The State of Telangana on 29 September 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings ir C.C.No.2662 of 2024, on the file of the I Additional Judicial F..rst Ciass Magistrate at Hanumakonda.

2. Heard Mr.A.Shiva Sainath, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. I .

3. The specific allegation against the petitioners is that they have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for proflt and on 12.11.2024, the petitioners were found in possession of4 quintals ofPDS rice.

4. Learned 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 Court, 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 reiief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. The learned 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 ,,/

essential commodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply fiom the dealer. 7 . A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr1.P.No.7227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that '' l'here is no overntenl indicuting thut the petitioner ln arry- h.ut deceptivalf intluced the beneJiciaries to part with the supplietl PDS rice or lhc banelit:iory entrusled the PDS rice purchased by them \)itll the pe tit)ner oni they dishonestly misappropriated or contertecl io their ortrl Ltse or useel il in violation of o lawful direction or contract. ln the ubsence ol c.rsentiul factors, on the face of prosecution, this Court finds it k.) he o lit ct^-e to exercise the jtrrisdictir.tn under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 I'ltus, conttnudnce ofproceedings against the petitioner i.s qbuse oJ p,rocess r.,/ luw"

8. 'f he facts and circumstances of the present case also similar to those in the above case and hence. this Court finds it to be a frt c;tse to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS by arplying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against ttre petitioners herein

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C-.C.No.2662 of 2024, on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Hanumakonda. against the petitioners/acc used Nos.1 aod2,are hereby quashed

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEGTION OFFICER

1. The I Additional Judicial First Class t\'4agistrate' At Hanumakonda

2. The Station House Officer, Police Station tVladikonda' Hanumakonda District 3 Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana' at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to SRI ARVAPALLI SHIVA SAI NATH Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CD CoPies TPK/GNK To,

HIGH COURT DATED: 2910912026

ORDER

CRLP.No.15971 o12026 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED s 1HE SI4 ot * --) 0 / 0[r 2020 .:..., ..'/' C) :7 f -l'cb +