Telangana High Court
G. Kalyan Reddy And Another vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 10 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1929 and 1984 OF 2023
COMMON ORDER:
1. Criminal Petition No.1929 of 2023 is filed to quash
the proceedings against the petitioners/A2 and A3 in
C.C.No.124 of 2022 on the file of Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Boath.
2. Criminal Petition No.1984 of 2023 is filed to quash
the proceedings against the petitioners/A2 and A3 in
C.C.No.12 of 2022 on the file of Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Boath.
3. Both these Criminal Petitions are filed by the
petitioners/A2 and A3 aggrieved by their implication in
C.C.Nos.124 and 12 of 2022 for the offences under
Sections 420 r/w 34 of IPC on the basis of fertilizer being
found in the premises, which fertilizer was not in
accordance with the specifications in the Fertilizer (Control)
Order and also for the reason of finding fertilizer banned
EVV,J
Crl.P.Nos.1929 & 1984 of 2023
by the State Government (Crl.P.Nos.1929 and 1984 of
2022).
4. Since the grounds raised in both the petitions are one
and the same, both the petitions are disposed by way of
this Common Order.
5. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Smt.Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for
the petitioners would submit that the police are barred
from investigating into said cases 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 relied on the following judgments:
i) Judgment of this Court in Criminal
Petition No.857 of 2021, dated
05.03.2021;
ii) Ramaola alias Easthar Bhagyavathi
and others v. Jacob Nava Maniraja and
others 1
2013 (1) ALT 87 (D.B)
EVV,J
Crl.P.Nos.1929 & 1984 of 2023
iii) District and Sessions Judge, Guntur
and others v. State of A.P 2;
iv) Farmers Service Co-operative Society,
Kothapally Medak and others v. State
Government of Andhra Pradesh 3
and argued that the prosecution cannot be held to be in
accordance with law. For the said reasons, the charge
sheets have to be quashed.
6. On the other hand, Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor opposing the applications for quashing
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, for which reason, both the applications
should be dismissed.
7. Despite service of notice, there is no representation
on behalf of respondent No.2.
[2000 (1) ALT (CRI.) 103 (D.B)
[2006 (2) ALT (CRI.) 359 (S.B)
EVV,J
Crl.P.Nos.1929 & 1984 of 2023
8. Having perused the record, in both the cases,
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.
9. The police, though conducted seizures in the said
premises and seized fertilizers and also sent them for
examination, however, failed to examine any purchaser of
the said fertilizer or any farmer, who had purchased the
said fertilizer resulting in loss to his crop. There is no
necessity to cause wrongful loss by using fertilizer,
however, mere stocking of fertilizer cannot be held to be
amounting to an offence of cheating punishable under
section 420 of IPC.
10. 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
EVV,J
Crl.P.Nos.1929 & 1984 of 2023
been induced;
iii) such induced persons should have parted with
property causing wrongful loss.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. However, this order will not preclude the authorities
to prosecute the petitioners for the offences of violating the
conditions of procurement of fertilizers, which was banned
or the violations of any Fertilizers (Control) Orders, 1985.
EVV,J
Crl.P.Nos.1929 & 1984 of 2023
14. In the result, proceedings against the petitioners/A2
and A3 in C.C.No.124 of 2022 and 12 of 2022 on the file of
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Boath, are hereby quashed.
15. Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions are allowed.
However, option is left open to the authorities concerned to
prosecute the petitioners for the offences under any special
enactments or other offences apart from Section 420 of
IPC.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any,
shall stand closed.
_____________________
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 10.02.2025.
krl
