Farmers Say Maize Seeds Bought From Her Shop Failed; Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash Case Against Retailer

In brief

The question

1. Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, a retailer who allegedly sold seeds that failed to yield crops, should be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS.

The court held

The High Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, leaving the criminal proceedings against the petitioner to continue.

It also directed

Any pending interlocutory applications were also dismissed.

01Facts

The petitioner, accused No. 4 and a seed retailer, sought to quash Criminal Case No. 3184 of 2025, arising from Ranebennur Town Police Station Crime No. 148 of 2025.

¶ 1–3 · pp. 3–4

The prosecution alleged that maize seeds sold to farmers in several districts during May and June 2025 failed to yield crops, causing loss to the farmers; a charge-sheet was filed alleging offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Essential Commodities Act, the Seeds Act, the Seeds Rules and the Seeds (Control) Order.

¶ 1–3 · pp. 3–4

The petitioner argued that she sold sealed bags supplied by manufacturers and had no control over seed quality.

¶ 5 · pp. 4–5

The State relied on witness statements that farmers had purchased seeds from the petitioner’s shop and suffered losses.

¶ 7–8 · pp. 5–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, a retailer who allegedly sold seeds that failed to yield crops, should be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS.

¶ 1, 5, 9 · pp. 3–5, 7

ii.2. Whether the petitioner’s contention that she merely resold sealed seed bags and could not verify their quality could be resolved in the quashing proceedings.

¶ 5, 9 · pp. 4–5, 7

03Law Applied

The petition was considered under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the provision invoked for quashing the proceedings.

¶ 1, 5 · p. 3

The alleged offences were under Section 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955; Section 3(1) and condition No. 2 of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983; Sections 6(a) and 6(b) of the Seeds Act, 1966; and Rule 8(a) of the Seeds Rules, 1968.

¶ 1 · p. 3

The Court applied the principle that disputed factual allegations requiring consideration of the investigation material cannot be adjudicated in a quashing petition under Section 528 BNSS.

¶ 9 · p. 7

It also noted that the petitioner relied on a coordinate Bench decision, Criminal Petition No. 101598 of 2025, without setting out or applying its governing principle in the order.

¶ 6 · p. 5

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 318

Seeds Act, 1966 Section 6

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 Section 3 Section 7

04Reasoning

The Court found that the investigation material included statements from farmers who said they had purchased maize seeds from the petitioner’s shop and suffered losses when the seeds failed to produce the expected crop.

¶ 8 · p. 6

Although the petitioner maintained that she was only a retailer and had sold sealed bags, the Court considered whether that status excluded liability to be a question requiring assessment of the allegations and evidence in accordance with law.

¶ 9 · p. 7

Because the petitioner disputed the factual allegations, the Court held that they could not be determined in the Section 528 BNSS proceedings.

¶ 9 · p. 7