Allowed

Shaik Nayeem, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Dec 2025CRLP/16995/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused sought quashing of proceedings in a PDS rice case under Section 7 of the EC Act, alleging no beneficiary complaint or deceptive procurement. Following a coordinate bench ruling on identical facts, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in CC No. 446 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Judicial Magistrate First Class at Armoor, against the petitioner/accused, quashed.

Shaik Nayeem, Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 16995 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Shaik Nayeem,, S/o. Shaik Ahmed, Age: 35 years, Occ: Labour, R|/o. H.No. 1- 7O-141a, Barkathpura colony, Perkit Village, Armoor Mandal, Nizamabad District, Telangana

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

B. Anjamma,, WSI of police, Ryo. Armoor, Nizamabad, Telangana State

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

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. 446 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Judicial Magistrate First Class at Armoor in so far as petitio ner/Accused

¶15

l.A. NO: 2OF 2025

¶16

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 against the petitioner/Accused in CC No. 446 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Judicial Magistrate First Class at Armoor pending disposal of the main criminal petition

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANI. q,T HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI .TUSTICE.I. SRET): ITVAS RAO

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 16995 of to25

DATE: L7.12.2025

Between :

Shaik Nayeem

Petitioner/accused

AND

The State of Telangala, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad and another

¶27

Respondents

¶28

This Criminal Petition has been hled under Se:: ion 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS) by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedinl;r in C.C.No.446 of 2023 on tle file of the Principal Judicial Magistra r of First Class at Armoor, for the offence under Section 7 of Essenti:rl Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, 'EC Act').

¶29

Heard Mr. Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jithendar Rao Veerama-ra, rearnec Adclitional pubric Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. I State.

¶30

karned counsel for tl e petitioner submittecl that the specihc aJlegation levelled against the petitioner is that he p -ocured pDS rice ./

¶31

¶32

!--\ -=u \f. ,] ,.

¶33

from the benehciaries at a cheaper^{rate in orderto sell it for profitand} that he was found in^{possessionof 5.70} Quintals^{of PDS Rice.}

¶34

3.1. He further submitted^{that withoutthere being any complaint from} aly benehciary alleging that^{the rice was procured dcceptively or with a} criminal intent and charging^{the petitioner for prosecutionis untenable} and improper. The^{allegations on their face value cannot be sustained} against the^{petitioner.Further, this Court in Crl.P.No'5709 of 2019 ald} 3349 of^2O 15, while^{consideringthe same situation,categorically} observed that the offences^{alleged against the pedtioner thereincalnot} be continued and^{quashed the proccedings. The petitioner is also} entitled to the sarne relief^{and, hence, prayed to quash the proceedings} against the^petitioner.

¶35

The learned Additiona-l^{Public Prosecutor submittedthat as per} prosecution, the offence^{said to have been committed by the petitioneris} cheating and violation^{of Section 7 arld 8 of EC Act and requestedto} pass appropriate orders.

¶36

Sections 7 and 8 of^{EC Act contemplate that alyperson} contravenes with the^{production, supply, distributionand trade of} essentjal commodities^{orabetment inthis regard, ispunishable'} Aspertheprosecution,thepetitionerhasprocuredPDSricefromthe benefrciaries after supply^{from the dealer.}

¶37

¶38

¶39

6- A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.p.N: 2227 of 2O25 has considered the identical facts and observed that:

¶40

"There is no averment indicating that the petitior€ - in any way deceptively induced the beneficiaries to pa-rt wifir the supplied PDS rice or the beneficiar5r entrusted the pDS rice rurchased by them with the petitioner and they dishonestly misap rropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violaticr of a lawful direction or contract. In the absence of essential Ia )tors, on the face of prosecution, this Court finds it to be a fit c.u e to exercise the jurisdiction under Section S2g of BNSS, il( 23. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner. is abuse of process of Iaw,,.

¶41

The facts and circumstances of the present casr a_lso similar to those in the above case and hence, this Court finds t: to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 52g of BNSS t y applying the same analos, and to quash tJre proceedings agains t the petitioner herein.

¶42

Accordingly. the Crimina.l petition is allcved and the proceedings in C.C.No.446 of 2023 on the frle of the pri rcipal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor, against the petir.i rner/accused, are hereby quashed.

¶43

Miscellaneous applications ding if any, shall r tald clo sed. SD/- P r ). SULEKHA D EVI ASSISI ANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

L)-

SiI iCTION OFFICER

To,

.1 . The principrl

l!9i:,."1^{Magistrate First Ctass} at Armoor 2. The Judiciat First cJass nt-rd)rt" di;; at Armoor 3. The Station House Officer,Xi,ir""r"#"".Station, Nizamabe J Ln( 1 iy;":,nli3;;'0""^{F;";;;"': n"ii;",nror the state c r reransanaat} ff-/ S 9:" 99 to Sri Atiuri Divakar Reddy, Advocate ropt rnr

HIGH COURT

JSR, J

DATED:1711212025

1 v\c
G)
oo .}-
1 '' tf;f' llitr:
*
}-/-
:ji'i :.SPAT

¶55

ORDER

¶56