IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.2024 of 2026 Date: 17.02.2026 Between:

Midde Sai Krishna ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad, Through P.S. Annapureddypally, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, T.G. and another ...Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.535 of 2025, on the file of learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

2. Heard Mr.Shaik Shareef, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients of Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are not attracted against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner supplied seeds to respondent No.2 and other agriculturists as a dealer, and he is not the manufacturer. Neither respondent No.2 nor any other person suffered any financial loss or personal injury. The petitioner has not supplied any substandard seeds and has not cheated respondent No.2 or any other person.

3.1. He further submitted that the District Agriculture Officer, Bhadradri Kothagudem, sent a letter to Dr.R.Srinivasa Rao, Scientist, and the said Scientist submitted a report dated 04.10.2024, wherein it is stated that there was a mutual

farmers had purchased the seeds from the manufacturers. Hence,

the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is a clear

abuse of process of law.

Per contra

4. , the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Investigating Officer, after recording the statements of LWs.2 to 4, who are the victims and who suffered losses due to substandard seeds purchased from the petitioner, found that the petitioner had cheated respondent No.2 and other victims with dishonest intention. He further submitted that the victims suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.5,74,000/- on account of purchasing substandard seeds. After recording the statements of the witnesses, the Investigating Officer filed the final report, wherein specific allegations have been made against the petitioner to attract the ingredients of Section 318(4) of the BNS. 4.1. He further submitted that the role of the Scientist is to examine whether the seeds sold by the petitioner met the required standards of purity or were substandard. However, in his report, the Scientist stated that there was a mutual

the seeds were sold and purchased based on such mutual

understanding. In the absence of any iota of evidence, the

Scientist stated that the seeds were sold solely on the basis of

manufacturers. Whether the farmers purchased the seeds pursuant to mutual understanding has to be decided by the trial Court. Basing on the said ground, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings.

5. 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 against the petitioner that he, with dishonest intention, sold substandard seeds to the farmers and cheated respondent No.2 and other victims. The Investigating Officer, after recording the statements of LWs.1 to 8, filed the final report, wherein it is specifically mentioned that respondent No.2 and other farmers sustained a huge loss of Rs.5,74,000/- due to the use of substandard seeds supplied by the petitioner. Hence, whether the petitioner has committed the alleged offences or not has to be decided by the trial Court.

6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any ground to quash the proce