Kaja Rama Rao vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.695 of 2020 on the file of the I Additonal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Madhira, for the offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, 'EC Act').

Heard Mr. B. Dileep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. With their consent, the criminal petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint and the final report, the ingredients of the offences under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 7 of the EC Act are not attracted against the petitioner. There was no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner. He further submitted that the issue raised in the present criminal petition is covered by the order passed in Crl.P.No.9717 of 2026, dated 30.06.2026. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the final report against the petitioner. The petitioner had purchased the rice from the Fair Price Shop Dealer, who was arrayed as accused No.1. It is alleged that accused No.1, who was entrusted with the distribution of commodities supplied by the Government to cardholders, dishonestly diverted and sold the PDS rice to the petitioner. There was a conspiracy between the petitioner and accused No.1. The said allegations prima facie attract the offences under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 7 of the EC Act. The order relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the present case, as in the case the petitioner therein had purchased the PDS rice from the cardholders, whereas, in the case on hand, the petitioner purchased the PDS rice from the Fair Price Shop Dealer. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at this stage. Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the final report against the petitioner are true or not, the same will be decided by the trial Court after a full-fledged trial. Further, the investigation is under progress.

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that there are specific allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the final report that 80 kgs. of PDS rice was purchased by the petitioner from accused No.1. Accused No.1 is a Fair Price Shop Dealer and the allegation is that he diverted the commodities entrusted to him and sole the same to accused No.2 and the petitioner at a higher price. The said allegations in the complaint as well as in the final report, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offence. Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the final report are true or not, the same will be revealed during the course of trial. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case on the ground that in the said case, the petitioner therein had purchased the PDS rice from the cardholders, whereas, in the case on hand, the petitioner purchased the PDS rice from the Fair Price Shop Dealer, who was arrayed as accused No.1.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any ground to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 in C.C.No.695 of 2020, while exercising the powers conferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner requested the Court to dispense with the presence of the petitioner before the trial Court on the ground that the petitioner is eking out his livelihood by doing business and that the matter before the trial Court has not yet ripened for trial.

The said submission has not been opposed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

Taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the presence of the petitioner/accused No.3 in C.C.No.695 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Madhira, is dispensed with, subject to the condition that he shall be represented through his counsel on each and every date of hearing. If the presence of the petitioner is required, he shall appear before the trial Court. In case of his non-appearance on the specific date fixed by the trial Court for his appearance, the trial Court is entitled to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law.

With the above directions, the criminal petition is disposed of.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.