Common Order:

1. These Criminal Petitions have been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short, ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.186 of 2026 of Yalal Police Station, Vikarabad District; F.I.R.No.141 of 2026 of Karankote Police Station, Vikarabad District and F.I.R.No.60 of 2026 Bantwaram Police Station, Vikarabad District, respectively, registered for the offences under Sections 318(4) and 338 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’), Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the E.C. Act’), Sections 8 and 19 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, and Sections 29(1), 29(2)(c), 29(3) and 29(6) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

2. The issue involved in these three (3) criminal petitions is one and the same. Hence, all these criminal petitions are clubbed together and being disposed of by way of a common order.

3. For the facility of reference, the facts from Crl.P.No.13554 of 2026 are being referred to.

4. Brief facts of the case:

               4.1. Respondent No.2, the Mandal Agriculture Officer, Yalal Mandal, lodged a complaint on 30.07.2026 before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Yalala Police Station, stating that on the same day, she received information that spurious DAP fertilizer bags were being stored and sold at Hajipur village of Yalala Mandal. Pursuant to the said information, she conducted a raid at the house of Rachuri Ashanna and found 28 bags of DAP fertilizer and the said bags seized and taken into custody and samples were sent to Laboratory. On enquiry, it was revealed that Pothula Mahipal and the petitioner had sold the said spurious DAP fertilizer bags. Hence, requested the police to take necessary action. Based on the said complaint, the present crime has been registered on 30.07.2026, for the offence under Section 318(4) of the BNS and Section 7 of the E.C. Act. Subsequently, added the other offences i.e., Section 338 of the BNS, Sections 8 and 19 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, and Sections 29(1), 29(2)(c), 29(3) and 29(6) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

5. Heard Mr. Y. Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.

6. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:

               6.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. There are no allegations, much less specific allegations, levelled against the petitioner. The only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that one Rachuri Ashanna informed the de facto complainant that he purchased the DAP fertilizer bags from the petitioner and accused No.1. Basing upon his statement and confessional statement of accused No.3, the petitioner was implicated as accused No.2. Accused No.3 is manufacturer and the entire allegations are levelled against him only. There is no conspiracy between the petitioner and accused No.3 or any dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner. Hence, the ingredients of any of the offences are not attracted against the petitioner.

               6.2. He further submitted that the petitioner has been implicated as an accused in several crimes registered in different police stations in different districts, based on the similar complaints lodged by the different Agriculture Officers. The petitioner has already been remanded to judicial custody in Crime No.148 of 2026 of P.S. Matttampally, in respect of the very same allegations levelled in the present complaint and the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, the Investigating Officer may be directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner in the present crimes.

7. Submissions of learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1:

               7.1. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner played an active role in the present case and he introduced accused No.1 to accused No.3 and facilitated the connection between them. Accused No.1 was engaged in selling fertilizer and accused No.3 was involved in the manufacture and marketing of spurious fertilizer. The petitioner was also a beneficiary of the illegal transaction and he is selling spurious DAP fertilizer to the innocent farmers and accused No.1 transferred an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner through PhonePe towards the sale proceeds of the spurious fertilizer. The petitioner along with other accused, with a conspiracy, manufactured spurious DAP and other fertilizer products by using contraband and spurious chemical substances and packed the same in bags resembling those of reputed companies, including Bharath DAP and IFFCO (Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Limited), with an intention to pass off the said spurious products as genuine fertilizers and the said spurious fertilizers were supplied through agents and mediators for unlawful gain.

               7.2. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of LWs.1 to 8 and the investigation is under progress. At this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings.

Analysis :

8. 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 levelled in the complaint that the petitioner along with other accused, with a conspiracy, engaged in the manufacture of spurious DAP and other fertilizer products by using contraband and spurious chemical substances and packed the same in bags resembling those of reputed companies, including Bharath DAP and IFFCO, with an intention to pass off the said spurious products as genuine fertilizer products and supply them through agents and mediators for unlawful gain to the innocent farmers.

9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed on record the written instructions furnished by the Sub Inspector of Police, Yalal Police Station, dated 21.08.2026, in Crime No.186 of 2026, wherein it is stated that the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of LWs.1 to 8 and accused No.1 transferred an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner towards sale proceeds of the spurious fertilizers and the petitioner was also a beneficiary of the illegal transaction and the investigation is under progress.

10. The record further reveals that initially, the crime was registered for the offences under Sections 318(4) of the BNS and Section 7 of the E.C. Act. Subsequently, basing upon the investigation, Section 338 of the BNS, Sections 8 and 19 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, and Sections 29(1), 29(2)(c), 29(3) and 29(6) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, were also added. There are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner that he along with other accused, with a dishonest intention to cheat innocent farmers, manufactured spurious DAP fertilizer and sold the same by passing it off as the product of reputed companies with false labels and earning unlawful profits. The allegations levelled in the complaint disclose the commission of cognizable offences and the investigation is under progress. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for quashing of the F.I.R. at this stage.

11. It is relevant to mention that in Bhajan Lal v. State of Hariyana ((1992) supp (1) SCC 335), the Hon’ble Supreme Court delineated the limited scope of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, holding that such power may be exercised only in exceptional cases where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any offence, are inherently improbable, legally barred, or manifestly mala fide, while cautioning that the categories so enumerated are illustrative and the power must be exercised sparingly.

12. The above said principles were reiterated in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd v. State of Maharashtra and Others ((2021)19 SCC 401), wherein it was emphasized that the police have a statutory right and  duty to investigate cognizable offences and that Courts should not interdict investigation at the threshold unless no cognizable offence is disclosed on a plain reading of the FIR; the FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia of all facts, and criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at their nascent stage. In the present case, the allegations made in the complaint prima facie disclose cognizable offences, and the investigation is under progress. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this case is not comes within the ambit of rarest of rare case to exercise the power conferred under Section 528 of the BNSS and the petitioner is entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at this stage.

13. In respect of the alternative submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and the Investigating Officer may be directed not to take coercive steps against the petitioner is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd (supra) and Sanjay Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1170), held that the Court cannot grant a blanket order of “no coercive steps” or “not to arrest”, as such protection is in the nature of anticipatory bail, which must be sought before the competent Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C., and granting such relief while refusing to quash the F.I.R. is wholly impermissible. In view of the said principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief of protection as sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

14. For the foregoing reasons as well as the precedent decisions, this Court does not find any grounds to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.186 of 2026 of Yalal Police Station, Vikarabad District; F.I.R.No.141 of 2026 of Karankote Police Station, Vikarabad District and F.I.R.No.60 of 2026 Bantwaram Police Station, Vikarabad District, against the petitioner.

15. In the result, all the three (3) criminal petitions are dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.