Allowed

Habibuddin Mohammed v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Feb 2025CRLP/2370/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused sought quashing of FIR over seized tobacco packets registered under Sections 271 and 275 BNS. Following precedent that only Food Safety Officers may investigate offences under the Food Safety and Standards Act, the High Court quashed the FIR and directed return of seized property.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 90 of 2025 against petitioner quashed; liberty to seek return of seized property from trial court, which to release it on proper acknowledgment.

Habibuddin Mohammed Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132s7¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH GOURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE^{NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶4

:PRESENT:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SMTJUSTICEJUWADI SRIDEVI}

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION^{NO: 2370 OF 2025}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Habibuddin Mohammed,^{s/o.Bashiruddin, occ. Business, aged.Ssyears,44-77,} Kumarpalli, Hanamkonda^{WarangalDistrict.} petitioner/Accused

¶9

petitioner/Accused

¶10

AND

¶11

1 TheStateofTelangana,RepbyitsPublicProsecutor,HighCourtforthe-Stateof Telangana HYderabad.

¶12

2 The Sub-lnsPector^{of Police,Hanamkonda Police Station' WarangalDist' .'} RespondenUComPlainant

¶13

PetitionunderSection52SofBNSS,prayingthatinthecircumstances statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofcriminatPetition,theHighcourtmay U" pi"r..o to^{quashthe proceedingsin FIR NO 90 ot 2025 on the file of} HanamkondaPoliceStation,WarangalDistrictagainstthePetitioner.

¶14

IA NO:20F 2025

¶15

Petition under Section^{15,1 CPCprayingthatin the circumstancesstatedin} theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedtodirect if," i".ponO"nts/^{HanamkondaPbliceStation,Warangal Dilric]-torelease the} prop"Oi 1), JK Tobacco^{Packets-115x .1000,total worth Rs"l ,15'0001 seizedin FIR} iitO. SO'ot'ZOzs on^{the file of Hanamkonda Police Station, Warangal District in favor} oil6"^p"titLn"r and^{pass, pending disposat of cRLp2370oI 2025, on the file of the} High Court.

¶16

This Petition coming^{on for hearing, uponperusingthe Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal^{petitiJn and upon heiring the argumentsof Sri BalaMurali} i, nJuo""t" for the^{petitionerand ihe of Sri Jithender Rao veeramalla, learned} Addl Public Prosecutor^{(TG) on behalf of the RespondentNo"l and None} appeared for the^{ResPondent No 2.}

¶17

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶18

I t

¶19

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2370 ot 2025

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Criminal Petition is filed by petitioner-accused to quash the proceeding:s in FIR No.90 of 2025 of P.S. Hanamkonda, Warangal District, registered for the offences under Sections 271 and 275 of lhe Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short 'BNS') (Previously Sections 269 and 273 of the lndian Penal Code).

¶24

lleard Sri Y.Bala Mlurali, learned counsel .for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public Prosecutor for the State-respondent.

¶25

ln Chidurala Shyamsunder v. State of Telanganal , a learned Single .ludge of the High Court, by following the guirtelines laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal2, held that the Police are incompetent to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 45 and 5g(l) of the Food Safety and Standards (FSS) Act, 2006, investigating into the offences along with other offenc,es under the provisions of the lndian penal Code, 1860, and filing charge sheet is grave illegality, as the Food Officer alone is competent to investigate and to file charge sheet following the Rules laid down under sections 41 and 42 of FSS Act. whereas. in the rCRL.P.No.3731 of201B rLnl barch dated 27 Oa20)g 2 1992 Supp {1) SCC 33;

¶26

¶27

present case, the Police have registered the crime for the offences under Sections2Tl and 275 of BNS,^{which is contraryto the principle} held by the learned Single Judge of the^{High Court in Chidurala} Shyamsunder^(supra) and,^{accordingly, the proceedings againstthe} petitioner are liable to be quashed.

¶28

ln view of the aforesaid discussion,^{this CriminalPetition} is allowed and the^proceedings against^{the petitioner-accused in FIR} No.90 of 2025 of P.S. Hanamkonda,^{Warangal District, are hereby} quashed. The petitioner-accused is at liberty to^{file appropriate} application before the^{learned Court belowfor return of seizedpropprty'} On such application being^{filed, the trial Court is directedto release the} seized^property'to the^{petitioneron properacknowledgment'}

¶29

As a sequel,^{pending miscellaneousapplications, if any, shall}

¶30

stand closed

¶31

To,

¶32

1.^{The Judicial Magistrate First Class'at Hanumakonda' Warangal District'} 2.^{The Station House Officer'HanamkondaPolice Station'Warangal District'}

¶33

3.^{One CC to Sri Y BalaMurali' Advocate iOPUCI} ;;curoR'^{Hish courtror the stateor reransana}

¶34

^ :ffi f;:""1"';''"t"+t

, 5.^{Two CDcopies'}

BJLB

HIGH COURT