Sandip Panjab Bokhare & Anr. vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.145 of 2026 of Bheemgal Police Station, Nizamabad District, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2, 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 'EC Act').

Heard Mr. G. Basappa, learned counsel representing Mr. Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. With their consent, this criminal petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences and have been falsely implicated in the present crime. The alleged seized rice was purchased from the card holders and ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) of the BNS and Section 7 of the EC Act are not attracted against the petitioners. He further submitted that the issue raised in the present criminal petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.2970 of 2026 dated 10.08.2026. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners 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 that the petitioners have purchased the rice from the fair shop dealer and that there is conspiracy between the dealers and the petitioners. Whether the petitioners have purchased the PDS rice from the card holders as contended by them, is a disputed fact and the same has to be revealed during the course of investigation, especially the investigation is under progress. Since the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, when the Investigating Officer is trying to follow the due procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’) and the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar^{11.(2014) 8 SCC 273}, the petitioners are evading the receipt of notice and not cooperating with the investigation.

Learned counsel for the petitioners by way of reply submitted that the petitioners will cooperate with the investigation.

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 that the petitioners have purchased the rice from known dealers. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioners have purchased the rice from card holders, the same has to be revealed during the course of investigation. The offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer wants to follow the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Section 35(3) of the BNSS.

In view of the same, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 31.08.2026 and on such appearance, the Investigating Officer is directed to follow the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS, and also the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) and the petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation. It is needless to mention that the petitioners are entitled to submit reply to the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS by raising all the pleas which are available to them and they are also entitled to submit the documents, if any, which are in their custody, to the Investigating Officer.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.