IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date:08.01.2026 Between:

Gurusriranga Srinivas Bodana Boina …Petitioner/Accused And State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another.

... Respondents

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in CC No.6020 of 2019 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge cum II- Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offences under Section 406 and

420 IPC.

2. Heard Ms. S. Nalini Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not committed any cheating and he was not entrusted with any property to commit criminal breach of trust. He further submitted that false allegations are attributed to the petitioner that he has supplied spurious seeds and that there is a Memorandum of Understanding between the petitioner and the de facto complainant and that the case is simply foisted with baseless allegations and hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner is alleged to have supplied spurious seeds and the prosecution could collect enough material to prove the offence against the petitioner. Several victims have lodged the complaints alleging that the seeds supplied by the petitioner did not germinate as per the specifications and hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. It is alleged that the accused approached the de facto complainant through social media and requested for advice and technical support for his export business for vegetables for Ieshaa Grow Private Limited and the accused has convinced the de facto complainant that by saying that he has sought all permissions and FSSAI certificates and thus, the petitioner has collaborated the de facto complainant with Shreya Fruits & Veggies by saying that it is his sister concern company. The de facto complainant has agreed for the terms to enrol the farmers and to give technical advice for okra project. The petitioner has ensured the farmers that he would provide a fixed price for the entire crop and also transport from farms and further he would accept the entire produce. Thus, the petitioner has supplied Okra seeds to the farmers, which are not genuine and not meeting any Seed Act regulations. The de facto complainant warned the petitioner several times not to handover such fake seeds, but he paid deaf ear and sold the seeds in the name of Jai Kissan Seeds, which is not registered and he has collected money from the farmers through Shreyas Fruits and Veggies and made an agreement with them. After 15 days from sowing date, the farmers found that the seeds did not germinate at all in some areas and that they are completely fake. Further, the petitioner was not reachable and cheated the de facto complainant and other victims. Thus, the allegations point out the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC against the petitioner. The complainants are the farmers.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC when there is a separate Seed Act to proceed against the accused if there are any allegations with the regard to supply of spurious seeds and further that there is no MoU between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. In the present case, the complaint is filed by an Agricultural Advisor alleging that spurious seeds are supplied to the innocent farmers. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that prosecuting for the offence under IPC is not just and proper when a separate enactment is existing, the said conte