AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.192 of 2026 of Kanchanbagh Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955(for short 'E.C. Act').
Heard Mr.K.Ramachandra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offence and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The alleged PDS rice was seized from accused Nos.1 and 2, and the entire allegations are levelled only against them. However, the petitioners have been implicated as accused solely on the ground that petitioner No.2 is the Fair Price Shop dealer and petitioner No.1 is the son of petitioner No.2. The petitioners neither purchased nor sold PDS rice to accused Nos.1 and 2. He further submits that the ingredients for the offence under Sections 318(4) of the BNS and Section 7 of the E.C.Act are not attracted against the petitioners and are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. He further submits that the Investigating Officer had issued a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') only in respect of petitioner No.2, and pursuant thereto, petitioner No.2 submitted a detailed reply on 18.07.2026. Despite the same, the Investigating Officer is summoning the petitioners to the Police Station, and the same is contrary to law. He further submitted that, insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned, the Investigating Officer ought to have followed the same procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of process of law.
Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners, and the said allegations, prima facie, attract the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the BNS and Section 7 of the E.C.Act. Whether the allegations levelled against the petitioners are true or not will be revealed during the course of investigation. Petitioner No.2 has already submitted reply to the notice issued under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. The Investigating Officer will follow the same procedure in respect of petitioner No.1 as well.
Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to the parties, the Investigating Officer has already served notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS in respect of petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.2 has submitted reply to the said notice on 18.07.2026.
In view of the same, the Investigating Officer is entitled to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and follow the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) against the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.1 is entitled to submit reply/explanation along with the documents, which are available with him, to the Investigating Officer.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.