Nyamthabad Shekar vs The State Of Telangana

The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana.

Myaka Srinivas, S/o Sayanna, Age. 49 years, Occ. DT(CS) Nandipet, R/o. Nizamabad Town and District, Telangana State.

...Respondents

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS 2023, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC No. 15 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First-Class at Armoor in so far as petitioner/Accused.

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2026

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings against the petitioner/Accused in CC No. 15 of 2023 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Judicial Magistrate of First-Class at Armoor pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition.

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr A. DIVAKAR REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of respondent No.1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2.

The Court made the following: ORDER

Date: 12.08.2026.

Between:

Nyamthabad Shekar

...Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana, and another

...Respondents

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.15 of 2023, on the file of learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor.

Heard Mr.A.Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents.

The specific allegation against the petitioner/accused is that he has procured PDS rice from the beneficiaries at cheaper

rate to sell the same for profit and on 05.12.2022, the petitioner was found in possession of 6.00 quintals of PDS rice.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that 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 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.

The learned 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 Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘EC Act’) and requested to pass appropriate orders.

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 beneficiaries after supply from the dealer.

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 essential factors, on the face of prosecution, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law”.

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 petitioner herein.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.15 of 2023, on the file of learned

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor, against the petitioner/accused, are hereby quashed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

SD/- B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

The Principal Judicial Magistrate of First-Class at Armoor

The Station House Officer, Nandipet Police Station, Nizamabad Dist.

One CC to Mr. A. DIVAKAR REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

Two CD Copies

RC/GNK

HIGH COURT

DATED: 12/08/2026

ORDER

CRLP.No.12969 of 2026

Allowing the Criminal Petition.

149 19/8/26