Vijayakumar Chaudhary vs State of Maharashtra - Quashing of FIR

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 18, Cited by 0 ] ### Bombay High Court

Vijaykumar Laxmanbhai Chaudhary vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Mul Tah. Mul ... on 10 March, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:4288-DB

          Judgment

                                                            4 apl1033.21

                                          1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION APL NO.1033 OF 2021

          Vijaykumar Laxmanbhai Chaudhary,
          a/a 40 years, occupation: business,
          r/o Balwant Nagar, Solaiya, tahsil Mansa,
          district Gandhinagar, (Gujrat). ..... Applicant.

                                 :: V E R S U S ::

          1. The State of Maharashtra, through
          Police Station Officer, Police Station,
          Mul, tahsil Mul, district Chandrapur.

          2. Prashant Govindrao Kasrale,
          a/a 30 years, occupation: service,
          r/o Hattimahal, tahsil Radhanagari,
          district Kolhapur,
          Mob.No.9420287677.        ..... Non-applicants.
          ================================
          Shri A.A.Dhawas, Counsel for the Applicant.
          Shri A.M.Joshi, APP for NA No.1/State.
          None for NA No.2.
          ================================
          CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
          DATE : 10/03/2026

          ORAL JUDGMENT 1.       Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective

          parties. Admit. Heard finally by consent.

.....2/-

Judgment

                                                  4 apl1033.21 2

1. By this application, the present applicant is seeking

quashing of FIR in connection with Crime No.245/2020

registered with non-applicant No.1 police station for offences

under Sections 420 of the IPC and under Sections 7(a), 7(b), 14, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the Seeds Act, 1968 and under Section 3 of the Seeds Control Order 1983 and under Sections 2, 4(1)

(i)(ii), 4(b), 4(ii), 5(1), 5(2), 12, 11(1)(2)(6) of the [Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply,

Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2009](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/67124480/) and

under Sections 7, 8, 15, and 16 of the Environmental

Protection Act, 1955 and consequent proceeding arising out

of the same bearing RCC No.54/2021 pending on the file of

learned JMFC, Mul, district Chandrapur.

1. The crime is registered on the basis of a report dated

3.5.2020 lodged by non-applicant No.2 (the complainant)

on allegations that he is The Taluka Inspector Officer and

on 3.5.2020, he received a secret information that at

mauza Bembal, taluka Mule, district Chandrapur, within

                                                      .....3/-

Judgment

                                                  4 apl1033.21 3 territorial jurisdiction of Panchayat Samiti at Mul, one

person, namely Rafique Shaikh Abdul Rashid, was carrying

prohibited seeds B$III/HTBT/RRI in truck bearing

registration No.MH-31/CQ/9882 in suspicious

circumstances. Therefore, he intercepted the said truck

and he found the truck driver is in possession of 3500

packets of cotton seeds. The said seeds were brought

unauthorizedly and illegally and it was found that those

seeds were banned. Therefore, panchanama was drawn in

presence of panchas and those seeds packets were seized.

Total muddemal of Rs.29,55,000/- came to be seized along

with the truck.

On the basis of the said report, the police have

registered the crime against the applicant and other co-

accused.

1. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the

applicant is a permanent resident of taluka Mansa, district

                                                      .....4/-

Judgment

                                                 4 apl1033.21 4 Gandhinagar (Gujarat) and businessman by profession. He

has no criminal antecedents against him. He submitted

that merely on suspicion, he was arrested. The FIR is not

provided under provisions of the Seeds Act, 1966. In view

of that, the FIR is not maintainable.

He submitted that in view of Sections 15 and 16 of

the Act of 2009, the procedure narrated is also not

followed by the complainant. The samples are not

obtained in view of Sections 15 and 16 of the Act.

Thus, due to non-following of the procedure, the

application deserves to be allowed.

He further submitted that as far as role of the

applicant is concerned, investigation papers nowhere show

either that he is manufacturer or dealer or supplier of the

said seeds. Merely on suspicion, he is implicated in the

alleged offence.

.....5/-

Judgment

                                                    4 apl1033.21 5 In view of that the application deserves to be

allowed.

1. Per contra, learned APP for the State has strongly

opposed the said contentions and submitted that

considering the applicant was found in possession of the

Cotton Seeds, in contravention of provisions, the

application deserves to be rejected.

1. As far as the contention of learned APP for the State

is concerned, the complainant is an authorized Officer. Section 2 of the Act of 2009 deals with definition and Section 2(ii) defines "Controller" means the Cotton Seed

Controller appointed by the Government under Section 3. Section 3 pertains to 'Appointment of Controller,' which

states that the State Government may, by notification in the

Official Gazette, appoint an officer, possessing such

qualifications as may be prescribed, to be the Controller.

.....6/-

Judgment

                                                 4 apl1033.21 6

1. From plain reading of the said Sections, it could be

gathered that it would require notification in the Official

Gazette to appoint an Officer having requisite qualification

to be the Controller. The powers of the Controller are

enumerated in Section 4 of the Act of 2009. Section 15 of

the Act of 2009 shows that no Court shall take cognizance

of an offence punishable under this Act except upon a

complaint, in writing, made by the Controller or any other

officer authorized by him for his behalf.

1. In the present case, the FIR is lodged by the Taluka

Agricultural Inspector.

1. Thus, it is crystal clear that, the complaint is neither

filed by the Controller nor any other Officer authorized by

the Controller for this purpose. Admittedly, the FIR is filed

by the complainant who is serving as The Taluka Inspector

Officer. No notification is on record showing he is

authorized by the Controller.

.....7/-

Judgment

                                             4 apl1033.21 7

1. The pleadings filed on record nowhere reveal that

the complainant is authorized by the Controller to file and

initiate the proceedings i.e. FIR.

1. Thus, admittedly, the complainant is not the

competent person who can file the said FIR.

1. This Court has already dealt with this issue in the

case of [Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Limited vs.

State of Maharashtra](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165929614/), reported in MANU/MH/1252/2015:

2015 ALL MR (Criminal) 2213.
13. The ground raised by learned counsel for the

applicant is that in view of the procedure given under Section 15 of the Seeds Act, 1966, it deals with the

procedure to be followed by the Seed Inspector. In view of Section 15, no opportunity was granted to the applicant to

reanalyze the sample. In view of Section 15(1)(b) of the

Seeds Act, 1966, it deals with the manner in which the

samples are to be taken, which reads as under:

.....8/-

Judgment

4 apl1033.21 8 "15(1)(b). except in special cases provided by
rules made under this Act, take three
representative samples in the prescribed
manner and mark and seal or fasten up each
sample in such manner as its nature permits."

"15(2) When samples of any seed of any
notified kind or variety are taken under sub-
section (1), the Seed Inspector shall-

(a) deliver one sample to the person from
whom it has been taken;

(b) send in the prescribed manner another
sample for analysis to the Seed Analyst for the
area within which such
sample has been taken; and

(c) retain the remaining sample in the
prescribed manner for production in case any
legal proceedings are taken or for analysis by
the Central Seed Laboratory under sub-section
(2) of section 16, as the case may be."

"16. Report of Seed Analyst.- (1) The Seed
Analyst shall, as soon as may be after the
receipt of the sample under sub-section (2) of section 15, analyse the sample at the State Seed
Laboratory and deliver, in such form as may be
prescribed, one copy of the (2) report of the
result of the analysis to the Seed Inspector and
another copy thereof to the person from whom
the sample has been taken.

.....9/-

Judgment

4 apl1033.21 9 (2) After the institution of a prosecution under
this Act, the accused vendor or the complainant
may, on payment of the prescribed fee, make an
application to the court for sending any of the
samples mentioned in clause (a) or clause (c) of
sub-section (2) of section 15 to the Central
Seed Laboratory for its report and on receipt of
the application, the court shall first ascertain
that the mark and the seal or fastening as
provided in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 15 are intact and may then dispatch the
sample under its own seal to the Central Seed
Laboratory which shall thereupon send its
report to the court in the prescribed form
within one month from the date of receipt of
the sample, specifying the result of the
analysis."
14. Thus, in view of Section 15(1)(b) of the Seeds Act,

1966, it was obligatory on the part of the Seed Inspector to

obtain three representative samples.

1. In the present case, there is non-compliance of Section 15(1)(b). The ground raised by the applicant in the

present application is that the opportunity for reanalysis the

sample is not given to him.

.....10/-

Judgment

                                                  4 apl1033.21 10

1. Another ground raised by the applicant is that in view

of Section 15, the complaint is to be filed by the authorized

Officer. Under Section 15, when the Seed Inspector seizes any

record register or any other material, he should inform the

Magistrate and take his order for which he can use Form IV. Section 14 of the Seeds Act provides for the powers of Seed

Inspector and Section 15 of the Seeds Act provides for the

procedure to be followed by the Seed Inspector in taking

samples. As per the provisions under Section 14(1)(c) of the

Seeds Act, 1966, the Seed Inspector is empowered to search

or inspect the premises any time, where the Seed Inspector

has reason to believe that such offence has been committed.

As per Section 14(1)(d) of the Seeds Act, the Seed Inspector

may examine any record, register, document or any other

material object found in any place and if he has reason to

believe that the record, register, etc., may furnish evidence of

the commission of an offence punishable under the Act, he

may issue a seizure order in Form IV of the Seeds Rules, 1968

                                                     .....11/-

Judgment

                                                  4 apl1033.21 11 and seized the records. As per [Section 14(1)(e)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/208774/) of the Seeds

Act, 1966, the Seed Inspector can exercise such other powers

as may be necessary for carrying out the purposes of this Act

or any rule made thereunder.

1. Section 420 of I.P.C. provides for punishment for

cheating and dishonestly inducing a person to deliver the

property. It clearly requires that a person to be prosecuted for

the offence under the said Section has necessarily to do an act

which would amount to deliver any property to any person, or

to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable

security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is

capable of being converted into a valuable security. The

necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 420 of

I.P.C. is dishonestly inducing the person cheated and to deliver

the property or valuable security. Undisputedly on the

consideration of the F.I.R. in question it does not disclose any

fact which can constitute a prima facie case establishing an

inducement for the sale of seeds in question.

.....12/-

Judgment

                                              4 apl1033.21 12

1. Learned Counsel for the applicant has rightly

pointed out that the Applicant has been deprived of the

opportunity to get the sample tested in terms of Sub Section 1(b) of Section 15 of the Seeds Act, 1966 and thus

the applicant was deprived from getting the sample tested

and thus there is a contravention of Section 15(1)(2).

1. Thus, a fair opportunity was not granted to the

present applicant for sending the sample as only one

sample was obtained by the Taluka Inspector Officer and

no sample was available for the applicant to send it for

reanalyzes. Moreover, in view of Section15, the Seed

Inspector or the authorized person has to file the compliant

and not the FIR. The Police authorities cannot investigate

the complaints of the above nature and it is only the Seed

Inspector can file complaint in view of Section 200 of

Cr.P.C.

.....13/-

Judgment

                                               4 apl1033.21 13

1. Thus, the applicant has made out the case that there

is a contravention of the provisions of the Seeds Act, 1966 as the complaint is not filed and the FIR is lodged i.e. also

not by the authorized Officer and no sample was available

for reanalysis after filing of the complaint by the

complainant.

1. In view of that, the applicant has made out the case.

The continuation of the complaint against the provisions of

law will be an abuse of process of law and, therefore, the

application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed

to pass the following order.

ORDER

(1) The criminal application is allowed.

(2) FIR in connection with Crime No.245/2020 registered

with non-applicant No.1 police station for offences under Sections 420 of the IPC and under Sections 7(a), 7(b), 14, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the Seeds Act, 1968 and under Section 3 of

                                                  .....14/-

Judgment

                                                                                4 apl1033.21 14 the Seeds Control Order 1983 and under [Sections 2](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1737188/), [4(1)(i)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/715302/)

(ii), 4(b), 4(ii), 5(1), 5(2), 12, 11(1)(2)(6) of the [Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply,

                       Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2009](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/67124480/) and

                       under Sections 7, 8, 15, and 16 of the Environmental

                       Protection Act, 1955 and consequent proceeding arising out

                       of the same bearing RCC No.54/2021 pending on the file of

                       learned JMFC, Mul, district Chandrapur are hereby quashed

                       and set aside to the extent of present applicant Vijaykumar

                       Laxmanbhai Chaudhary.

Application stands disposed of.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

                       !! BrWankhede !!

Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../-
Date: 16/03/2026 10:05:55