[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITIO N NO: 9255 OF 2026 Befween: years, Occ: 1. Kaleern Khan, S/o. Late Muneer Khan @ Musheer Khan, Aged 27 Drivei, R/o. H.No. 9-20-1546, Auto Nagar, Nizamabad Town and District. Pincode 503001. 2. Md. S:-rmerKhan, S/o. Md. Nabi, Aged27 years, Occ; Business, R/o. H.No.7-12-98, Ashok Nagar Nizamabad Town and District. Pincode. 503001 ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos.'l and 2 AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad. 2. Sri. P. Nikhil Raj, Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Nizamabad Town and District. Pincode. 503001 ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAI NANT 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 impugned proceedings in C.C.No.268 ol 2025, on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad, against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and2. I l.A. NO: 2OF 2026

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 interim stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.268 of 2025, on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad., including appearance and attendance of the Petitioners/Accused Nos. '1 and 2, pending disposal of the above C|iminal pet;iion. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminai ?etition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gaje Raghu, Advocate for thr: Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent uo.'1 and None appeared for Respondent no.2. The Court r.rade the following: ORDER AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO Date: 23.06.2026 Between: Kaleem Khan and another ...Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, atHyderabad and another .Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.l and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in c.c.No.268 of 2025, on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad. 2. Heard Mr.G.Raghu, leamed counsel for the petitioners and publicMr.Jithender Rao veeramalla, learned Additional Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

3. The specific allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 is that they have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at 2 1.1 I .2024, thecheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on I petitioners were found in possession of 34.10 quintals of PDS rice. petitioners would submit that4. Learned counsel for the 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 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 petitioners are also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. Public Prosecutor submits that as per5. The learned Additional prosecution, the oftbnces said to have been committed by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Sections 7 and l7 (e) 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 3

essential commodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer. \ 7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that: "There is no averment indicating that the petitioner in any way deceptively induced the beneficiaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitioner and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violation of a lawful direction or contract. In the absence of essent ial factors, on the face of prosecut ion, this C ourt finds it to be afit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law". 8. The facts and circumstances of the present case also similar to those in the above case and hence, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. the 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and proceedings in C.C.No.268 of 2025, on the fiIe of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad, against the petitioners/accused Nos.l and2, are hereby quashed. 4 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stard closed. SD/- A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// C SECTION OFFICER To '1. The Liclditional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nizamabad 2 The station House officer, r- Town porice station, Nizamabad District. prosecutor, :1. Two ,:ics to public High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyde'abad [OUTJ 4. One C C to Sri. Gaje Raghu, Advocate tOpUCI 5. Two CrD Copies I)r/KA Z& HIGH COURT Df\TED: 23/06 12026 aou. .S ORDER CFILP.No.9255 of 2026 9!H AI-LOW$NG THE CRIMIN.AC- PETITION ^fl0 ,la*

[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITIO N NO: 9255 OF 2026 Befween: years, Occ: 1. Kaleern Khan, S/o. Late Muneer Khan @ Musheer Khan, Aged 27 Drivei, R/o. H.No. 9-20-1546, Auto Nagar, Nizamabad Town and District. Pincode 503001. 2. Md. S:-rmerKhan, S/o. Md. Nabi, Aged27 years, Occ; Business, R/o. H.No.7-12-98, Ashok Nagar Nizamabad Town and District. Pincode. 503001 ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos.'l and 2 AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad. 2. Sri. P. Nikhil Raj, Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Nizamabad Town and District. Pincode. 503001 ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAI NANT 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 impugned proceedings in C.C.No.268 ol 2025, on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad, against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and2. I l.A. NO: 2OF 2026

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 interim stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.268 of 2025, on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad., including appearance and attendance of the Petitioners/Accused Nos. '1 and 2, pending disposal of the above C|iminal pet;iion. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminai ?etition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gaje Raghu, Advocate for thr: Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent uo.'1 and None appeared for Respondent no.2. The Court r.rade the following: ORDER AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO Date: 23.06.2026 Between: Kaleem Khan and another ...Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, atHyderabad and another .Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.l and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in c.c.No.268 of 2025, on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad. 2. Heard Mr.G.Raghu, leamed counsel for the petitioners and publicMr.Jithender Rao veeramalla, learned Additional Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

3. The specific allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 is that they have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at 2 1.1 I .2024, thecheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on I petitioners were found in possession of 34.10 quintals of PDS rice. petitioners would submit that4. Learned counsel for the 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 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 petitioners are also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. Public Prosecutor submits that as per5. The learned Additional prosecution, the oftbnces said to have been committed by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Sections 7 and l7 (e) 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 3

essential commodities, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer. \ 7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that: "There is no averment indicating that the petitioner in any way deceptively induced the beneficiaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitioner and they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use or used it in violation of a lawful direction or contract. In the absence of essent ial factors, on the face of prosecut ion, this C ourt finds it to be afit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law". 8. The facts and circumstances of the present case also similar to those in the above case and hence, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. the 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and proceedings in C.C.No.268 of 2025, on the fiIe of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad, against the petitioners/accused Nos.l and2, are hereby quashed. 4 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stard closed. SD/- A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// C SECTION OFFICER To '1. The Liclditional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nizamabad 2 The station House officer, r- Town porice station, Nizamabad District. prosecutor, :1. Two ,:ics to public High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyde'abad [OUTJ 4. One C C to Sri. Gaje Raghu, Advocate tOpUCI 5. Two CrD Copies I)r/KA Z& HIGH COURT Df\TED: 23/06 12026 aou. .S ORDER CFILP.No.9255 of 2026 9!H AI-LOW$NG THE CRIMIN.AC- PETITION ^fl0 ,la*