Chowdavarapu Nageswara Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Petition under Section 528^{of BNSS praying that in the circumstances statedin} the Memorandum of Grounds^{of criminal Petition,the High court may be pleased to} call for records and^{quash the} cc^{No 493 oI 2021 on the file of Addl.Judicial} Magistrate of First class at^{Khammam for offences under section 420 sec 7 ECA.}

¶15

l.A. NO: 1OF 2026

¶16

Petition under section 528 of^{BNSS praying that in the circumstances statedin} the Memorandum of Grounds^{of criminal Petition, the High courtmay be pleased to} stay all further^{proceedingsand including arrestof petitionercc No 493 of 2021on} the file of Addl. Judicial Magistrate^{of FirstClass at Khammam for offencesunder} Section 420 Sec 7 ECA^{pending disposalof the above criminal petition}

¶17

This Petition coming on^{for hearing'upon perusing the Memorandum} -^of Grounds of criminal^{Petition and uponhearingthe arguments of Sri S CHANDRA} MOHAN REDDY, Advocate^{for the Petitionerand Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla,the} Addl. Public Prosecutor^{on behalf of the RespondentNo.1 and none appeared on} behalf of the Respondent^No.2.

¶18

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SRET;NIVAS RAO

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14656 of2026 CNR No.HBH C01060602202

¶22

Date:09.09.2026

¶23

Between

¶24

Chowdavarapu Nageswara Rao.

¶25

. .Pet itioner/Accused

¶26

AND

¶27

The State ofTelangana and another

¶28

Respondents

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This Criminal Petition has been .",rled bv the

¶31

petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.493 of 202], on the hle of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate. at Madhira

¶32

Heard NI/s. S. Chandra Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and lvlr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Ieaned Additional Pubhc Prosecutor for rcspondent No.1

¶33

The specific allegation against the petitionevaccused is that he iras procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same frrr profit and on22.06.2021, the petitioner was f.und in possession o1 236 quintals of pDS rice.

¶34

2

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit^that without there being any complaint^{fromany beneficiary, alleging} that the rice was procured deceptively or with a^{criminalintent and} charging the petitioner for^{prosecutionis untenableand improper.} The allegations, even taken at his face value cannot be sustained against the petitioner. Further, this Court, in Crl.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^petitioner is also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to^quash the proceedings against the petitioner

¶36

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

¶37

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} petitioner has procured PDS rice from the beneflrciaries^after supply from^{ttre Cealer}

¶38

3

¶39

A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.p.No.7221 of

¶40

2025 has considered the identical facts and obsen,etl that

¶41

"There is no o\ermcnt indicating thut the petitioner in any wa1 deceptively inthrced thc benefiuaries to port with the suppl,,ecl pDS rice or the beneliciqry entrusted the pDS rice purchasecl by tl,em with the petitioner ctrtd thcy dtshctnestlv misappropiuted <.tr conyerted b rherr own us( or used it m ,olqtion of q lawful direction or coruract. ln the ab.sance oft.tsentialJirctors, on theface ofprosecution, this Court Jinds it to be t.lit t.ttse lo excrcise the jurrsd.iction under Secliotl 52g of BNSS, 2023.^'lhus continuon.e r2l proceedings ctgainst the petirioiter is abtrse of procc;s ol luw "

¶42

The lacts and circumstances of the present case also similar to those in the above case and hence, this Court fin<ls it to be a fit case to excrcrse jurisdiction under Section 52g of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner he rein.

¶43

Accordtngly, the Criminal petition is allorved and the proceedings in C.C.),to.493 of 2021 on the file o: the leamed Additional Judicial Frrst Class Magistrate, at Madhira, against the petitioner/accu scd. are hereby quashed.

¶44

Pending rniscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶45

closecl.

¶46

SD/. MOHD.TSMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶47

//TRUE COPYII

¶48

To,

¶49

SECTION OFFICER