Parmeshwar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R. No.91 of 2026 of Pangal Police Station, Wanaparthy District, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused for the offences punishable under 318 (4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Heard Mr.B.Shiva Rama Sharma, learned counsel representing Mr. K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Jithendar Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and with their consent the present criminal petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner has not committed any offence. He was falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations levelled against the petitioner the ingredients for the offence under Section 318 (4) of BNS is not attracted. There is no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner that he mixed the new paddy with the old paddy with an intention to supply the rice to the IKP Centre.

The petitioner has cultivated the land covered by Sy.Nos.40/1, 55/1, 57/1, 670, 685, 69/6, 70, 106/2, 106/3 and 110, situated at Mahamadapur village, Pangal Mandal, Wanaparthy District and the said paddy pertaining to the said agricultural land. When this paddy loaded into the lorry and the said lorry was kept within the premises of the rice mill of the petitioner. The respondent No.2 seized the vehicle and made the present complaint with a false allegation that the petitioner mixed new paddy with the old paddy. The said allegation does not attract the ingredients for the offences punishable under Section 318 (4) of BNS. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of process of law.

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are specific allegations levelled in the complaint that the lorry bearing registration No.TS32T7497 was found parked in front of the petitioner's rice mill and as an IKP Centre is also located adjacent to the said rice mill, the lorry was found under suspicious circumstances therefore, for the purpose of enquiry the said lorry was taken into police custody on 24.06.2026. The paddy samples were collected inside the lorry and forwarded to the TA for examination. As per the examination report submitted by the TA the samples contained a mixture of old paddy with new paddy.

He further submitted that the petitioner with an intention to supply the rice to IKP Centre mixed the new paddy with old paddy. Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint true or not the same will be revealed during the course of investigation especially the investigation is at threshold. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of LWs.1 to 5. The investigation is under progress and at this stage the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings.

Having considered the rival submission made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that there are specific allegations levelled in the complaint that the petitioner with an intention to deliver the CMR rice from his rice mill he mixed old paddy with the new paddy. The specific allegations levelled in the said complaint that the contraband seized from the vehicle belonging to the petitioner's own agricultural land. The petitioner has not mixed any new paddy with the old paddy as alleged in the said complaint. It is relevant to mention whether the petitioner mixed any new paddy into old paddy with an intention to supply the CMR to the government or the paddy belonging to the petitioner which was harvested from the agricultural lands as mentioned supra is disputed question of facts. The same cannot be adjudicated and decided by this Court by exercising the powers conferred under Section 528 of BNSS.

It is also relevant to mention the offences levelled against the petitioner are below 7 years of imprisonment. The Investigating Officer ought to have follow due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') and also the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar^{11.(2014) 8 SCC 273} hence the Investigating Officer is directed to follow the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of BNSS 2023 and the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar supra. It is needless to mention that the petitioner is entitled to put forth his grievance by raising all the pleas which are available to him and also entitled to submit the documents if any which is in position to the investigating officer after receiving notice under Section 35(3) BNSS.

With the above said directions, this criminal petition is disposed of.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.