[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRry FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13962 0F 2026 Between: Vaanarashi Avinash, S/o. Rajesham, Aged 21 years, Occ. Driver, R/o. H.No 1-5137tcts, Budigajangala colony, Jagtial Town and District. Pincode.505327 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor' High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad 2. Sri. MD. Aleemuddin, ASl, Korutla P.S, Jagtial District. Pincode. 505326. ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lrlemorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the impugned proceedings in F.l.R. No. 262 of 2026, on the file of the Korutla Police Station, Jagtial District, in so far as Petitioner/ Accused, is concerned. 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 F.l.R. No. 262 of 2026, on the file of the Korufla Police station, Jagtial District., including appearance and attendance of the Petitioner/ Accused, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G. Raghu, PublicAdvocate for the Petitioner, sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional appeared for theProsecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABI,E SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.13962 of 2026 Date: 31.08.2026 Between: Vaanarashi Avinash ...Petitioner AND The State ofTelangana and another ..Respondents ORDF],R This Criminal Petition has been filed bv the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings 1n F.I.R.No.262 of 2026 of Korutla Police Station, -Iagitial District registered for the offences punishable under Section 3 I 8(4) of the Rharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 and Section 7(lXaXi) of the Essential Commodities Act. 1955

2. Heard IVIr.G.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jlthender Rao Veeramalla, Iearned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 . 3. The specific allegation against the petitionerr'accused is that he has procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on08.07.2026, the petitioner was found in possession of 8 quintals of PDS rice E 2 that4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner would submit 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 Cr1.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. Public Prosecutor submits that as per5. The learned Additional prosecution, the offences said to have been committed by the petitioner is cheating and vioiation of Section 7 of the EC Act and requested to pass appropriate orders

contemplate that any person6. Section '7 of the EC Act 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 beneficiaries after supply from the dealer. 7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr1.P.No.722i of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that: "There is no aNernlent mdicating thot the petitioner in any wuy deceptit,el.. inducecl the beneJ)ciaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or the benefician e tntsted the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitrcner and they dishonestly misappropriated or convcfied to their own use or used it i Niolotion of a lawful direction or contracL ln the absence oJ'essential factors, on the face of pro,secution, this Court fnds case to exercise the jurirdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, it to be o ft 2023. Thu.s, continuonce ofproceedings d.gainst the petitioner is abuse of process o/ 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 exeroise Jurisdiction under Section 52E of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to_ quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in F.l.R.No.262 of 2026 of Korutla Police Station.

.lagitial District, against the petitioner/accused, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Judicial First Class l\/agistrate at Korutla 2. The Station House Officer, Korutla Police Station, Jagitial 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 4. One CC to Sri G. Raghu, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies VH/GNKw HIGH COURT DATED: 3110812026 ORDER 1 HE SI4 tGRLP.No.13962 ot 2026 oI Pz OS SEP 2026 .\Ci -':,t.' * o iT i: a lJi.'-t- z' ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION .o$d t, --^ V!-.^^r

[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRry FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13962 0F 2026 Between: Vaanarashi Avinash, S/o. Rajesham, Aged 21 years, Occ. Driver, R/o. H.No 1-5137tcts, Budigajangala colony, Jagtial Town and District. Pincode.505327 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor' High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad 2. Sri. MD. Aleemuddin, ASl, Korutla P.S, Jagtial District. Pincode. 505326. ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lrlemorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the impugned proceedings in F.l.R. No. 262 of 2026, on the file of the Korutla Police Station, Jagtial District, in so far as Petitioner/ Accused, is concerned. 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 F.l.R. No. 262 of 2026, on the file of the Korufla Police station, Jagtial District., including appearance and attendance of the Petitioner/ Accused, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G. Raghu, PublicAdvocate for the Petitioner, sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional appeared for theProsecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABI,E SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.13962 of 2026 Date: 31.08.2026 Between: Vaanarashi Avinash ...Petitioner AND The State ofTelangana and another ..Respondents ORDF],R This Criminal Petition has been filed bv the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings 1n F.I.R.No.262 of 2026 of Korutla Police Station, -Iagitial District registered for the offences punishable under Section 3 I 8(4) of the Rharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 and Section 7(lXaXi) of the Essential Commodities Act. 1955

2. Heard IVIr.G.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jlthender Rao Veeramalla, Iearned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 . 3. The specific allegation against the petitionerr'accused is that he has procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on08.07.2026, the petitioner was found in possession of 8 quintals of PDS rice E 2 that4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner would submit 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 Cr1.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. Public Prosecutor submits that as per5. The learned Additional prosecution, the offences said to have been committed by the petitioner is cheating and vioiation of Section 7 of the EC Act and requested to pass appropriate orders

contemplate that any person6. Section '7 of the EC Act 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 beneficiaries after supply from the dealer. 7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr1.P.No.722i of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observed that: "There is no aNernlent mdicating thot the petitioner in any wuy deceptit,el.. inducecl the beneJ)ciaries to part with the supplied PDS rice or the benefician e tntsted the PDS rice purchased by them with the petitrcner and they dishonestly misappropriated or convcfied to their own use or used it i Niolotion of a lawful direction or contracL ln the absence oJ'essential factors, on the face of pro,secution, this Court fnds case to exercise the jurirdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, it to be o ft 2023. Thu.s, continuonce ofproceedings d.gainst the petitioner is abuse of process o/ 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 exeroise Jurisdiction under Section 52E of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to_ quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in F.l.R.No.262 of 2026 of Korutla Police Station.

.lagitial District, against the petitioner/accused, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Judicial First Class l\/agistrate at Korutla 2. The Station House Officer, Korutla Police Station, Jagitial 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 4. One CC to Sri G. Raghu, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies VH/GNKw HIGH COURT DATED: 3110812026 ORDER 1 HE SI4 tGRLP.No.13962 ot 2026 oI Pz OS SEP 2026 .\Ci -':,t.' * o iT i: a lJi.'-t- z' ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION .o$d t, --^ V!-.^^r