Madamsetti Manjula vs The State Of Telangana on 22 April, 2025

Telangana High Court

Madamsetti Manjula vs The State Of Telangana on 22 April, 2025

Author: N.Tukaramji

Bench: N.Tukaramji

          THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

                CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4635 OF 2025

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS, 2023’) seeking

quashment of the proceedings in Crime No.54 of 2025 of Madanapur

Police Station, Wanaparthy District, against the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is sole accused in Crime No.54 of 2025 registered

for the offences punishable under Sections 316 (2), 316(5), 318(4) of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS, 2023’) and Section 7 of

Essential Commodities Act,1955 (for short, ‘EC Act‘).

3. Heard Mr. Pasham Mohith, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

representing the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that the petitioner is the

Proprietor of Rice Mill under the name and style of ‘M/s. Lakshmi

Venkateshwara Traders’, Danthanur Village, Madanapur Mandal, and

engaged in the business of milling of paddy. The Telangana State Civil

Supplies Corporation Limited (for short, ‘TGSCSCL’) entered into

agreement with the petitioner’s firm for procuring and milling of paddy

and to deliver back the custom milling rice. Accordingly, the department
2 NTR,J
Crl.P.No. 4635 of 2025

delivered 8,765 MTs of paddy and the Rice Mill delivered 1922 MTs of

CMR Rice. It is alleged that the TGSCSCL Department had conducted

inspection in the petitioner’s rice mill on 26.03.2025 and found

4,608 MTs of paddy missing for the seasons of Rabi 2022-23, Khariff

2022-23, Khariff 2023-24 and Rabi 2023-24. Thus, a Police Report was

lodged against the petitioner for misappropriation of stocks and violation

of the agreement and for recovery of the amounts.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the

agreement, the de facto complainant and petitioner would be in joint

custody of the paddy. Further pleaded that the Government did not

properly store the paddy and for natural reasons some of the quantity

was damaged. Howsoever, as per the agreement, the dispute has to

be placed before the Arbitrator and without such an effort, the

Government on its own concluding misappropriation and initiating

prosecution without any conclusive findings on relevant aspects

alleging criminality is untenable. That apart, the petitioner is ready to

cooperate with the investigation and is intending to see the process

through. He further pointed out that the coordinate Bench of this Court

vide Criminal Petition Nos.1574, 1575 of 2025, 895 and 12037 of 2024

held that Section 316(5) of BNS, 2023 would not attract in the

circumstances of the case and directed the investigating agency for

issuance of 35(3) of BNSS, 2023 notice and to follow the guidelines
3 NTR,J
Crl.P.No. 4635 of 2025

enunciated in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar 1. Thus pleaded for

granting similar relief to meet their hardship.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that it is a

clear case of misappropriation, the petitioner and similarly placed other

rice millers have caused loss of crores of rupees to the State and by the

direction of issuance of notice, it is becoming difficult in proceeding with

the investigation for want of cooperation from the petitioner. That apart,

a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.Nos.3933 of 2024, 3305 of

2024 and 3306 of 2024, having considered the submissions dismissed

the criminal petitions. The petitioner herein is also facing self same

accusations, therefore, pending investigation proceedings, this petition

has to be dismissed. Further submits that, if the Court considers

otherwise, directing the petitioner for depositing considerable amount

against the complaint mentioned loss.

7. I have perused the materials on record.

8. Admittedly, the petitioner is a rice miller and running an industry

under the name and style of ‘M/s.Lakshmi Venkateshwara Traders’. It

is clear by the averments of the complaint that TGSCSCL Department

had entered into agreement with the petitioner for carrying out milling of

1
(2014) 8 SCC 273
4 NTR,J
Crl.P.No. 4635 of 2025

paddy. Further, in the complaint, the misappropriation has been

alleged. Whereas the petitioner’s plea of joint custody and the

defences like natural decay, loss due to improper stocking of the

materials are to be examined in the investigation. In such position, any

direction to furnish security would be premature.

9. Further, having regard to the nature of the offences and depth of

allegations against the petitioner and except the alleged offence under

Section 316(5) of BNS, 2023, rest of the accusations are punishable

with an imprisonment upto seven years and considering the fact that

the petitioner is running rice mill industry and the Government’s contract

is disclosing petitioner’s well rooted place in the society and the aspects

that the prosecution has not raised any impediment in securing the

presence of the petitioner for investigation and the readiness of the

petitioner to cooperate with the investigation, without entering into

merits and keeping all prerogatives of the investigation open and to

maintain parity, directing the Investigating Agency for issuance of

Section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023 notice on the petitioner in Crime No.54 of

2025 and to adhere the guidelines of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar 2

before proceeding against the petitioner, is found appropriate.

Accordingly, ordered. In unison, the petitioner is directed to submit

2
(2014) 8 SCC 273
5 NTR,J
Crl.P.No. 4635 of 2025

explanation and materials, if any, and shall cooperate with the

investigation.

10. With this direction, this Criminal Petition is disposed of.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 22.04.2025
svl