Dasari Naveen Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, “Cr.P.C.”) / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “BNSS”), seeking to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.3 in C.C. No.703 of 2025 on

¶23

the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court,

¶24

2

¶25

Ongole, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, “I.P.C.”).

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

¶27

The 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant lodged a complaint with the police, which was registered as a case in Crime No.9 of 2019, dated 29.01.2019, for the alleged offence punishable under Section 420 of „the I.P.C‟).

¶28

The petitioner is working as a Horticulture Officer. The allegation of the 2^nd respondent is that Accused No.1, by name Bodanaboina Guru Sriranga Srinivas, is the Director of Jai Kisan Hakkula Samvidhan Samithi. He, along with his wife (Accused No.2), came to Addanki and encouraged farmers to cultivate the Tulasi (basil) crop, assuring them that it would yield heavy returns. Accused Nos.1 and 2 arranged a conference in Addanki Town by inviting L.Ws.1 to 29 and other farmers from the surrounding Mandals. Government officials, namely L.Ws.30 to 32 belonging to the Agriculture and Horticulture Departments, and L.W.33, also attended the conference, which was aimed at creating awareness about the Tulasi crop.

¶29

Accused Nos.1 and 2 informed the farmers that they would undertake

¶30

all activities under the supervision of their organization up to the stage of harvesting. It is alleged that Accused No.3 (the petitioner), being the Horticulture Officer, colluded with Accused Nos.1 and 2, accompanied them to

¶31

3

¶32

the village, and informed the farmers that cultivation of basil would yield good profits. Accused Nos.1 and 2 advised the farmers to use fertilizers supplied by their organization. They assured that within 90 days of sowing, the crop would be ready for harvesting and that the farmers would be paid Rs.48,000/- per acre. They further assured that Rs.96,000/- would be paid for two harvests within 180 days. Additional assurances were also given. Believing their representations, the 2^nd respondent and other farmers purchased basil seeds at the rate of 100 grams for Rs.1,500/- per acre. The accused also promised to pay an advance amount within 30 days of plantation. However, only 11 farmers were paid amounts ranging from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- with a promise to pay the balance later. The remaining farmers were not paid any amount even subsequently. The organization failed to supply agricultural implements after plantation and also failed to purchase the crop.

¶33

It is further alleged that a legal notice was issued from Hyderabad to the farmers stating that they should transport the crop to Hyderabad for laboratory analysis and that the organization would pay the amount at its discretion. Ultimately, the grievance of the farmers, including the 2^nd respondent, is that Accused Nos.1 and 2 failed to honour their promises and assurances, thereby cheating them. However, in the entire above-mentioned episode, there is no specific role attributed to the Petitioner/Accused No.3, who is a government servant working as a Horticulture Officer in the concerned area. It is not the petitioner who made any promise to the farmers, the alleged assurances were given by Accused Nos.1 and 2. Further, there is no material to indicate that

¶34

4

¶35

the petitioner had entertained a dishonest intention from the very inception of the transaction. No specific allegations are levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.3. Being a public servant, even assuming that any misconduct was committed in the discharge of official duties, prior sanction from the competent authority would be necessary before taking cognizance. The learned jurisdictional Magistrate could not have taken cognizance in the absence of such sanction.

¶36

At any rate, the allegations do not attract the ingredients of Section 420 of „the I.P.C.,‟ insofar as the Petitioner/Accused No.3 is concerned. The proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.3 are manifestly absurd and amount to an abuse of process of law. No case, much less a prima facie case, is made out against the Petitioner/Accused No.3 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 420 of „the I.P.C‟.

¶37

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.3 alone in C.C.No.703 of 2025 (Crime No.9 of 2019 of Mundamur Police Station, Prakasham) pending on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Ongole, are hereby quashed.

¶38

As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶39

_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

¶40

Date: 24.02.2026 KMS

¶41

5

¶42

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶43

CRIMINAL PETITION No.11434 of 2026