[2025:RJ-JP:41592] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4490/2020 Sagar Ram S/o Sh. Khiyaram Bisnoi, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Lamba, Tehsil Bilara, Distt. Jodhdhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Banshi Lal Jat, Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Jodhopur, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Bishnoi, Adv. with Mr. Rishabh Bhidasra, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Spl. PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 13/10/2025 1. The petitioner, by way of filing this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has challenged complaint No.VIII(IO)08/NCB/JZU/2019 filed by the Narcotics Control Bureau qua his implication in the complaint and has also challenged the cognizance order dated 12.03.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge N.D.P.S. Court, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short 'the trial Court'), whereby cognizance has been taken under Section 8/25 & Section 29 of NDPS Act against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only allegation relating to the petitioner in the complaint has been mentioned in para 38 of the complaint, which is reproduced as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:41592] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-4490/2020] "38. ;g fd bl izdj.k esa tCr'kqnk Vªd la[;k RJ 19 GD 8145 ds ekfyd ¼vkjlh ds vuqlkj½ Jh lkxjjke fc'uksbZ iq= Jh f[k;kjke fc'uksbZ] fuoklh 451 yksyks dk ckl] ykack fcykM+k] iqfyl Fkkuk& fcykM+k] ftyk& tks/kiqj] jktLFkku dks eq> vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh n~okjk fnukad 23-07-2019 dks iwNrkN gsrq NDPS Act 1985 dh /kkjk 67 ds vUrxZr uksfVl Hkstk x;k ftldh vuqikyuk esa mDr O;fDr vius c;ku ntZ djkus gsrq vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh ds le{k mifLFkr ugha gqvk gS] mlds ckn nwljh ckj lkxjjke fc'uksbZ fnukad 23-08-2019 dks NDPS Act 1985 dh /kkjk 67 ds vUrxZr uksfVl Hkstk x;k ftldh vuqikyuk esa Hkh og vius c;ku ntZ djkus gsrq vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh ds le{k mifLFkr ugha gksus ij rhljh ckj fnukad 22-10-2019 dks iqfyl Fkkuk& fcykM+k ds ek/;e ls NDPS Act 1985 dh /kkjk 67 ds vUrxZr uksfVl Hkstk x;k gS ftldh vuqikyuk esa Hkh mDr O;fDr vius c;ku ntZ djkus gsrq vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh ds le{k mifLFkr ugha gqvk gSA lkxjjke fc'uksbZ dks Hksts x;s rhuksa leu] rFkk Fkkuk vf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk& fcykM+k dks fy[kk x;k i= la[;k 3665 fnukad 22-10- 2019 dh dEI;qVj izfr layXu ifjokn gSA" 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thus, the respondent-Bureau has proceeded against the petitioner on the sole premise that the petitioner is registered owner of vehicle No.RJ-19-GD-8145, which was carrying doda post on 23.05.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that although, earlier the petitioner was registered owner of above vehicle, yet the same was sold by him to one Sh. Gokal Ram S/o Sh. Dheema Ram, who is the prime accused in the complaint filed by the respondent-Bureau. He further submits that after selling the vehicle, the same has also been registered by the Regional Transport Officer, Jodhpur on 09.04.2018 in favour of Gokal Ram. Thus, from 09.04.2018, Gokal Ram is the registered owner of the vehicle and vehicle was in his possession. It was submitted that apart from the allegations in para 38 of the complaint, there are [2025:RJ-JP:41592] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-4490/2020] no allegations whatsoever against the petitioner. Neither the petitioner was found in conscious position of doda post, nor is there any allegation with regard to any abetment or conspiracy against him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without conducting proper investigation with regard to registered owner of the vehicle and on misconceived notion of facts, the petitioner was falsely implicated in the complaint by the respondent-Bureau and even the trial Court did not consider the fact that although, other documents were also found from vehicle such as Pollution under Control Certification, declaration under Section 194C (6) of the Income Tax Act for the non deduction of tax at source and insurance policy of the vehicle showing that the vehicle was insured as well as certificate of fitness, national permit for public carrier etc. which were clearly indicating that the registered owner of the vehicle was Gokal Ram. However, in ignorance of manifest and apparent evidence that the petitioner was not registered owner of the vehicle in question and there are no allegation whatsoever against him in the complaint, in quite mechanical manner and without application of mind with regard to there being any prima facie case against the petitioner, vide order dated 12.03.2020, the cognizance has been taken by the trial Court, which is causing grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the petitioner as he has been forced to face vexatious and frivolous trial in the circumstances where he is not at all involved in the incident alleged in the criminal complaint. 5. Learned counsel appearing for NCB vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that as per the information [2025:RJ-JP:41592] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-4490/2020] given by the Regional Transport Officer, Jodhpur, the respondent- Bureau was informed that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle and since, he was not responding to the different summons issued by the respondent-Bureau, therefore, he has rightly been implicated as an accused and the court below has committed no mistake whatsoever in taking cognizance against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bureau further submits that at the time of taking cognizance, the trial Court is required to examine only the material, which is available before the Court and not the defence of the accused. Hence, at this stage, no interference is called for and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Since, the sole basis for implication of the petitioner in the impugned complaint was, that the complaint shows that the petitioner was registered owner of vehicle No.RJ-19-GD-8145, whereas this fact was disputed being against the record by the petitioner. Hence, during the pendency of the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.12.2021 directed the Regional Transport Officer, Jodhpur to submit a report as to who was the owner of the vehicle No.RJ- 19-GD-8145 as on 23.05.2019 as per the record of the RTO. 8. In compliance of the order dated 06.12.2021 passed by this Court, the Regional Transport Officer, Jodhpur sent one letter dated 09.12.2021 revealing therein that although, earlier the petitioner was registered owner of vehicle No.RJ-19-GD-8145, yet on 09.04.2018, on account of sale of vehicle, registration has been [2025:RJ-JP:41592] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-4490/2020] transferred in favour of Gokal Ram S/o Dheema Ram and since then, he was registered owner of the vehicle. 9. Thus, it is clear by the report given by the Regional Transport Officer, Jodhpur vide letter dated 09.12.2021 that as on 23.05.2019, on which date, the alleged offence has been committed, petitioner was not registered owner of the vehicle and since, the only allegation levelled against him in para 38 of the complaint is on account of treating him to be registered owner of the vehicle, therefore, there being no other allegation against the petitioner, no justified reason has come forward to take cognizance against him and to continue trial pursuant to such cognizance. Moreso, when the certificate of Pollution Under Control, declaration under Income Tax Act and insurance policy national permit for public carrier and other documents were already available on record of the trial Court so as to indicate that the petitioner was not registered owner of the vehicle and rather one Gokal Ram was registered owner of the vehicle. Hence, no further evidence is required after the letter dated 09.12.2021 sent by the Regional Transport Officer, Jodhpur and under these circumstances, no case for taking cognizance vide order dated 12.03.2020 is made out against the petitioner. Still, in case the petitioner is forced to face the trial pursuant to order dated 12.03.2020, it would be vexatious and frivolous trial against the petitioner and would certainly cause the failure of justice. 10. Hence, order dated 12.03.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge N.D.P.S. Court, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur as well as impugned complaint are quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:41592] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-4490/2020] However, the trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed further against the other accused implicated in the complaint. 11. However, it is made clear that in case any other evidence indicating involvment of the petitioner is made out except the allegations levelled him in para 38 of the complaint, the petitioner shall cooperate with the Investigating Authority and shall submit the necessary documents before the Bureau, which shall act strictly in accordance with law. 12. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of accordingly. (ANAND SHARMA),J Jatin /5