(Prayer: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the fir in Crime No. 173/2025 Turvihal P.S for the offences punishable u/Sec 318 (4) of BNS, pending on the file of Addl Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC. Sindhanoor Dist Raichur.)

Oral Order

1. This petition is filed by a proprietor who is manufacturing paddy seeds seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crime No. 173/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS, on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindhanoor.

2. The gist of the complaint is as under:

Respondent No.2/complainant is admittedly running a fertilizer, seeds and pesticides retail outlet in the name and style of M/s. Vinayak Traders for nearly two decades. In the course of his business, respondent No.2 has been purchasing paddy seeds from various manufacturers, including the present petitioner. Certain farmers, who had purchased paddy seeds from respondent No.2, lodged complaints alleging that the crops raised from the said seeds were affected by leaf blight disease and that the seeds supplied were substandard. Consequent to such complaints, respondent No.2 himself was subjected to criminal prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. Subsequent to the registration of the said crime, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the present petitioner and its proprietor alleging that the seeds supplied by them were substandard and had resulted in leaf blight disease, thereby causing loss to farmers. On the basis of the said complaint, Crime No.173/2025 came to be registered and the matter is presently under investigation.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, placing reliance on Sections 13, 14, 15 and 19 of the Seeds Act, 1966 (for short, "the Act"), would contend that the initiation of criminal proceedings at the instance of respondent No.2 is expressly barred under the scheme of the Act. It is submitted that the Act prescribes a complete and self-contained mechanism for dealing with allegations relating to substandard or spurious seeds. Referring specifically to Section 15 of the Act, it is contended that only a duly notified Seeds Inspector is competent to draw samples, follow the mandatory procedure for sampling and forward the same to the Seeds Analyst for examination. In the absence of compliance with the statutory procedure, any criminal prosecution is vitiated.

5. Learned counsel would further rely upon the judgment of the High Court of Telangana in Mallya Venkatreddy v. State of Telangana (Criminal Petition No.4791 of 2021), to contend that this very issue has been conclusively settled. It is urged that the High Court has categorically held that for alleged violations of the provisions of the Seeds Act, prosecution can be initiated only after the Seeds Inspector draws samples and obtains a report from the Seeds Analyst. Therefore, a dealer or private individual cannot unilaterally set the criminal law in motion alleging offences in respect of matters governed by the Act. On these grounds, it is contended that the registration of the impugned crime is wholly without jurisdiction and the proceedings deserve to be quashed.

6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that though the Seeds Act provides a statutory mechanism, there is no absolute embargo on an aggrieved person, particularly a dealer, from initiating criminal proceedings under the general penal law, namely the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is contended that allegations of cheating are independent and therefore the proceedings ought not to be interdicted at the threshold.

7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would echo the submissions of the learned HCGP and contend that the power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, ought to be exercised sparingly and that the investigation should be permitted to proceed.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, the following point arises for consideration:

          "Whether the criminal proceedings initiated at the instance of respondent No.2 alleging supply of substandard seeds and consequent crop disease, invoking the offence of cheating, are liable to be quashed on the ground that respondent No.2 lacked the competence to initiate prosecution in respect of matters governed by the Seeds Act, 1966?"

9. The primary grievance of respondent No.2, who himself is a dealer, is that farmers have complained that the seeds purchased from him were affected by leaf blight disease. Based on such complaints, respondent No.2 has lodged the impugned complaint alleging that the present petitioner supplied substandard seeds and thereby committed an offence of cheating.

10. A careful examination of Sections 13 and 14 of the Seeds Act makes it abundantly clear that the authority to inspect, search and seize, and to take samples of seeds is vested exclusively with the Seeds Inspector. Section 15 of the Act prescribes a detailed and mandatory procedure for sampling, including the requirement of dividing the sample into portions, delivering one part to the person from whom it is taken and forwarding another part to the Seeds Analyst for analysis. Section 19 of the Act further provides for penalties only upon proof of contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder.

11. The statutory scheme unmistakably indicates that the Seeds Act is a complete code in itself governing the field relating to quality, certification and prosecution for sale of substandard or spurious seeds. Any allegation that seeds are defective or substandard necessarily requires compliance with the statutory procedure, including scientific analysis by the Seeds Analyst. In the absence of such compliance, the allegation remains purely speculative.

12. The judgment of the High Court of Telangana in Mallya Venkatreddy (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The said judgment unequivocally holds that where allegations pertain to violation of the Seeds Act, the Seeds Inspector alone is competent to initiate prosecution after following the procedure contemplated under Sections 14 and 15 of the Act and upon receipt of the Seeds Analyst's report.

13. In the present case, it is not in dispute that no Seeds Inspector has drawn samples nor has any analysis been conducted by a Seeds Analyst. In the absence of such foundational statutory compliance, the very registration of the impugned crime at the instance of respondent No.2 is clearly without jurisdiction. The jurisdictional police officer was not justified in entertaining a complaint which runs contrary to the express provisions of the Seeds Act.

14. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and therefore warrants interference under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

15. Therefore, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

          (i) The petition is allowed.

          (ii) The proceedings in Crime No. 173/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS, 2023, pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindhanoor, Dist. Raichur, are hereby quashed.