Petition under section 528 of B.N.S.S.^{prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the Memorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to} quash the impugned proceedings in FlR. No.¹⁵⁰ ol^{2026,on the file of the} dharmaram^poliCe Station,^{Peddapalli District,in so far as Petitioner/ Accusedis} concerned.

¶15

l.A. NO: 2OF 2026

¶16

Petition under section 528 of^{B.N.S.S. prayingthatin the circumstances statedin} the Memorandum of Grounds^{of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to} grant interim stay of all further^{proceedingsin F.l.R. No. 150 of 2026,on the file of} ihe Dharmaram^{policeStation, Peddapalli District., including appearanceand} attendance of the PetitioneriAccused,^{pending disposalof the abovecriminal} petition.

¶17

This Petition coming on^{for hearing, upon perusingthe Memorandumof Grounds} of criminal Petition ant upon^{hearing the arguments of Sri G. RAGHU, Advocatefor} the Petitioner and Sri Jithender^{RaoVeeramalla, learned AdditionalPublic} Prosecutor on behalf of the^Respondents.

¶18

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶19

IN THE HIGH CO URT FORTHE STA'IE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶20

THE TIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶21

(lRI MINAL PETITION No. 14598 of2026

¶22

CNR.No.HBIIC0l06l2 352026 Date: 08.09.2026

Between

\4otam Babti

..Petitioner

AND

The State of lelangana, and another

¶28

...Respondents

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This Criminal Pctition has been filed seeking to quash the

¶31

proceedings in FIR No. 150 of 2026 of Dharmaram police Station, Ramagundam Distnct, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused fbr the off-ences punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitln,2023 (for short^,BNS,) and Section 7 of thc Essential^(lommodities Act, 1955 (for short^,EC Act,).

¶32

2 Heard NIr.G.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶33

Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public Prosecutor lor rei|(rndL'nts

¶34

¶35

The specific allegation against the^{petitioner/accusedis that} he has procured PDS rice from^{the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to} sell the same for^profit and on25.08.2026,^{the petitionerwas found} in possession of 10.50 quintals ofPDS^rice

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner^{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 petitioner for^{prosecution is untenable and improper.} The allegations, even taken^{at his face value cannot be sustained} against the petitioner. Further,^{this Court, in Crl.P.Nos.5709 of} 2019 and 3349 of 2015, while^{considering the same situation,} categorically observed that the^{offencesalleged againstthe} petitioners therein could not be continued^{and accordinglyquashed} the proceedings. The^{petitioneris alsoentitled to the same relief} and hence prayed to^{quash the proceedingsagainst the petitioner.}

¶37

The leamed Additional^{PublicProsecutor submits that as per} prosecution, the offences said to have been^{committedby the} petitioner is cheating and violation of Section^{7 of the EC Actand} requested to pass appropriate orders.

¶38

¶39

Section 7 of the EC Act contemplate that any person contravenes rvith the production, supply, distnbution and trade of essential commodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioner has procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer.

¶40

1 . A Coordinatc Bench of this Courr in Crl.p.No.7227 of 2025 has considered thc identical facts and observed that:

¶41

''Tht'ra, i5 no (rttment intlicoting. thot the peitioner in unt y,cty dti, I'tl.lt tntlu,.,,l th, hcncf,itries ru pdrt ttith the sapnl;"r1 pDS rice rtr th,. be,tc/itiur) L,ntnt5ted the pDS rice purchused by rhem with the petilit)ner oncl thc) tltshonestlv mi.sappropriated or conl)erted to their o\rn usc (ri- rtsed it in ialation ofq luwful direction or c()ntrdct. In lhe absenca ol assentittl foctors, on the fice of pntsec.ution this CourtJinds it to hc e Jit ( qse to (xercise the jurisdiction Lffider Section 5 2g of BNSS, 2023 [h;6, .ontinuqncc ofproceedings egainsl the p(,titioner is qbu.se of pru(L'r-: ,,)/ lrr<sup>"

¶42

Thc facts and circumstances of the present case also similar

¶43

to those in the abovc case and hence, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise .jurisdiction under Section 52g of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein.

¶44