THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.4689 OF 2025

ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.325 of 2024 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Asifabad.

2. Heard Ms.Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor of the respondent No.1-State.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.06.2021 the de-facto complainant/ Mandal Agricultural Officer on credible information of de-notified NPK granulated mixture, has surprised the business premises of the petitioner No.1 i.e., M/s.Asra Agro Service Centre, Jainoor village and Mandal, Komurambheem Asifabad District, thereupon, seized the stock and lodged the complaint against the petitioners-accused.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the police are barred from investigating into said case wherein selling of fertilizers, if found which were not of quality or banned fertilizers, can only be done under the provisions of violation of Fertilizers (Control) Orders, 1985 and not under Indian Penal Code and cannot be prosecuted under Section 420 of IPC. He further submits that having regard to the similar position, this Court has quashed the proceedings against the petitioner/accused therein in Crl.P.No.1929 and 1984 of 2023 and Crl.P No.3991 and 9016 of 2021. Thus, continuation of proceedings under Section 420 of IPC against the petitioners would be abuse of process of law. Thus, prayed for quashment of proceedings in the calendar case against the petitioners-accused.

5. On the other hand, Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposing the same would submit that the petitioners were indulging in selling the fertilizers which do not have standards of quality prescribed and in the other case, banned fertilizers. The said acts of the petitioners would amount to an offence of cheating farmers, hence seeks to dismiss the petition.

6. Having perused the record, fertilizers were in fact found in the premises of the petitioners. Manufacturer of the said fertilizers, wholesaler and retailer are all made as accused. The fertilizer was not of standard quality and it was banned by the State Government.

7. This Court while considering the earlier criminal petitions, by observing that the elements of the deceptive act on the part of the accused and cheating are not made out, quashed the proceedings. In the present case, there is nothing to notice any unfair act of the petitioner in retailing the banned stock. The prosecution, for the reasons best known to it, chose not to examine the customers/ recipients to draw up such essential aspect. Thus, exfacie the materials are falling short to establish cheating. As such the prosecution for the offence under Section 420 of IPC would be improper.

8. To attract an offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of IPC, it is necessary that the prosecution proves the following:

i) that there was deliberate misstatement made;

ii) believing said misstatement person should have been induced;

iii) such induced persons should have parted with property causing wrongful loss.

9. Unless the three ingredients are proved, the question of any act falling within the four corners of cheating punishable under Section 420 of IPC does not arise.

10. As already discussed, the fertilizer was found in the premises and the prosecution has not made any effort to examine any person who had in fact purchased the said fertilizer on the basis of any false claims made by these petitioners. In the absence of any such proof of any false claims being made and the consequent fraudulent inducement being made out, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the prosecution for the offence under Section 420 of IPC, cannot be maintained.

11. However, this order will not preclude the authorities to prosecute the petitioners for the offences of violating the conditions of procurement of fertiliz