B. Sudarshan Reddy, v. The State of Telangana,

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

Judgment date: 2026-01-09

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-01-09. B. Sudarshan Reddy, v. The State of Telangana,. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.

Judgment text

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION NO:222 OF 2026 Between: B. Sudarshan Reddy, S/o Shiva Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Occ Business, R/o Laxmareddypally Village, Ghanpur [\4andal, N/ulug District. ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO, 1 AND 1. The State of Telangana,, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor. High Courl of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2. Nenavath Krishna Naik, Head Constable No. 1577, P. S. Hanamkonda, Wara ngal. . ,. RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praytng that in the clrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition. the High Court may be pleased to Call for the records relating to the proceedings in C. C. No. 5654 of 2022 and the F. l. R. in Crime No. 79 of 2019 of Hanamkonda P. S. on the file of the Spl Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) under PCR Act - cum - ll Addl.

Junior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda, for the alleged offences punishable under Section 420 of the lndran Penal Code (lPC) and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955,quash the same in the interest of justice l. A. NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praylng that in the circumstances stated rn the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C. C. No 5654 of 2O22 and the F. l. R. in Crime No. 79 of 2019 of Hanamkonda P. S. on the file of the Spl Judicial l\rlagistrate of Frrst Class (l\/obile) under PCR Act-cum-ll Addl Junior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda, for the alleged offences punishable under Section 420 of the lndian Penal Code (lPC) and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, or any connected proceedings before the competent court pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition -sfrrtF' ,'' .

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusirrr i tre N,4emorandum of Grounds of Crirrinal Petition and upon hearing tle argutnents of Sri K Vishnu Kanth, Advocate for the Petitioner anr I Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Il ;condent No. 1 State = and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER . 4j IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 222 of 2026 DATE OF ORDER:- 09. 01. 2026 Between: B. Sudarshan Reddy,S/o. Shiva Reddy, RTo. Mulug District. Petitioner/Accused No. 1 AND The State of Telangana rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad & another. . . . Respondents ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No. 1 in C. C. No.

5654 of 2022, on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) under PCR Act Additional Junior Civil Judge, -cum- ll Hanumakonda, registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 2. Heard Sri K,Vishnu Kanth, learned counsel for the ) petjtioner/accused No. 1 as well as Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the ETD,I Crl. P. No 222,2026 learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for llre respondent No. 1- State 3. The specific allegation against the petitioner I that he, along with other accused, used to procure PDS Rice frcim I hite ration card holders at lower price for selling the same at higt r r price and on '1 26. 03. 2019 at 9:30 hours, the petitioner & other rocused were found in possession of 34 white plastic bags of P[r: i rice weighing about 35 Kgs 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would furll er submit that without there being any complaint from any benefic z ry alleging that the Rice was procured deceptively or with a crimina ntent, charging the petitioner for prosecution is untenable and rtproper. The allegations leveled against the petitioner cannol [)e sustained Further, this Court in Crl. P. Nos. 57O9 ot 2019 and : ii493 of 2015, while considering the same situation, categorically o: ;erved that the offences alleged against the petitioner therein canrc t be continued and quashed the proceedings. The petitioner hereir l; also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash I ^ e proceedings against the petitioner . +#'a" ry ETOJ tn. P. No. 222 2026 I 5.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that I as per prosecution, the offences said to have been committed by the petitioner IS cheating and violation of Sections 7 and B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and hence requested to pass appropriate orders 6. Perused the material available on record 7. Sections 7 and B of the Essential Commodities Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, supply, distribution and trade of essential commodities or abetment in this regard, is punishable. As per the prosecution, the petitioner herein had procured PDS Rice from the beneficiaries after supply from the dealer \ { ( B. 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 petitioners 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 petitioners and they dishonestly misappropriated or convefted to their own use or used it in violation of a lawful direct@n or contract. ln the absence of essential factors, on the face of prosecution, this Coui finds it to be a fit case fo exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of 8NSS, 2023. Thus, continuance of proceedings against the petitioners ls abuse of process of law " tT0,l cn. P-No-222 2025 9. The facts and circumstances of the presen: <;ase also are similar to those in the above case and hence, this C,) 11 finds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 rr BNSS, 2023 by applying the same analogy and to quash the pror r edings against the petitioner herein. 10.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is all, r ved and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No. 1 in (:. C. No. 5654 of 2022, on the file of the learned Special Judicial Mi r istrate of First Class (Mobile) under PCR Act ll Additional Jur -cum- or Civil Judge, Hanumakonda, are hereby quashed. 11 . Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall s z rrd closed. l= D ABDULLA KHAN ;siTANT REGISTRAR IF //TRUE COPY// \ \ SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Special Judtcial lVlagistrate of First Class (Mobile) r r rler PCR Act-cum-ll Addl. Junior Crvrl Judge, Hanumakonda, 2. The Station l{ouse Officer, Hanamkonda Police Static r Warangal City. 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the i ertd of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]. 4. One CC to Sri K Vishnu Kanth, Advocate [OPUC] 5, Two CD Copres PM/PSI, 9, HIGH COURT DATED:0910112026 I :. : I '\ t S I I l I o I ORDER t \1 fl C) * I CRLP. No. 222 of 2026 t I I t I I ! I I ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION O6 1,il* ,W

Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.