1 2026:CGHC:7481-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 438 of 2026 Rinkee Yadav W/o Rajesh Kumar Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Yadav Mohalla Azad Market Risali Police Station- Neavi, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Supela Distt- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Sushant Prasanna Panda S/p Late Narendranath Panda Aged About 40 Years Posted As Law Officer Hinduja, Leyland Finance Pvt. Ltd. Nehru Nagar, P.S. Supela Distt- Durg (C.G.) R/o Behind Khursipar Police Station Bhilai P.S. Khursipar Distt- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Gagan Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.1-State : Mr.Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.02.12 10:20:40 +0530 2 11.02.2026 1. Heard Mr.Gagan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1/State. 2. By way of this petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “(1) Quash Supplementary Charge Sheet U/s 193 of B.N.S.S. bearing number 618-A/2025 dated 31.12.2025 filed against the petitioner in furtherance of Charge Sheet No. 618/2019 in F.I.R. No. 618/2019 registered at registered at Police Station Supela, Distt. Durg (C.G.) U/s 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B & 201 of Indian Penal Code (ANNEXURE P/1) and subsequent proceedings initiated thereon in relation to the petitioner herein, further, (2) Set aside of the cognizance order sheet dated 16.01.2026 (ANNEXURE P/2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District Durg in criminal case number 7638/2019 whereby the said court has taken cognizance in the matter pursuant Supplementary Charge Sheet U/s 193 of B.N.S.S. bearing number 618-A/2025 dated 31.12.2025 filed against the petitioner in furtherance of Charge Sheet No. 618/2019 in F.I.R. No. 618/2019 registered Police Station Supela, Distt. Durg (C.G.) U/s 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B & 201 of Indian Penal Code in relation to the petitioner herein; (3) Pass any other order in view of the special 3 facts and circumstances mentioned in the present petition, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that as per the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant/respondent No.2, namely Sushant Prasanna Panda, it is alleged that the husband of the petitioner and co-accused in the present crime, Rajesh Yadu, got two 14-wheel trucks (3718 A.L.) bearing registration Nos. CG 07 BN 2983 and CG 07 BN 2982 financed on 29.08.2018. The petitioner herein, Mrs. Rinki Yadav, wife of Rajesh Yadu, stood as guarantor for the said vehicles. It is alleged that after depositing the initial instalments of Rs. 1,40,000/- each for both trucks, Rajesh Yadu absconded with the vehicles from 02.01.2019 and failed to deposit the subsequent instalments. 4. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that upon making inquiries, the complainant came to know from certain sources that Rajesh Yadu, along with his wife Rinki Yadav (petitioner herein) and his brother-in-law Ram Kumar Yadav, forged the chassis numbers and registration numbers of the said vehicles. It is alleged that truck bearing No. CG 07 BN 2983 was altered to registration No. CG 07 BQ 8231 and its original chassis No. MB1NACHD7JPDD5140 was changed to MB1NACHD9HPDY9364. Similarly, truck bearing No. CG 07 BN 2982 was allegedly altered to registration No. CG 07 BQ 8680 and its chassis No. MB1NACHD9JPDD5141 was changed to MB1NACHD9HPDY9375. It is further alleged that the vehicles 4 were transferred in the name of co-accused Ram Kumar Yadav, son of Naresh Yadav. 5. It is also alleged that Rajesh Yadu, Rinki Yadav and Ram Kumar Yadav, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, got the vehicles refinanced from Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd. without obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the complainant company. The allegation states that by forging chassis and registration numbers, preparing fake Registration Certificates (RC books), and transferring the vehicles in the name of Ram Kumar Yadav, they committed offences including criminal breach of trust and cheating. 6. The present crime pertains to the year 2019 (F.I.R. dated 21.06.2019). It is pertinent to mention that although the charge- sheet against co-accused Ram Kumar Yadav was filed on 18.09.2019, the charge-sheet against the present petitioner has been filed only on 16.01.2026, after an inordinate delay of nearly seven years. 7. The petitioner has been granted bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, vide order dated 06.10.2020. The co-accused Ram Kumar Yadav was granted bail by this Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 09.12.2019 passed in MCRC No. 6743/2019, and co-accused Rajesh Yadu was granted bail by the learned trial Court vide order dated 26.03.2021. The matter is presently 5 pending trial before the concerned Court. 8. That, as per the charge-sheet, the Investigating Agency, Police Station Supela, District Durg, sought information from the concerned Regional Transport Officer (RTO), District Durg, regarding the ownership and transfer of the above-mentioned vehicles. The concerned RTO, vide inquiry report dated 13.09.2019, informed the SHO, Police Station Supela, that Rajesh Yadu is the registered owner of trucks bearing Nos. CG 07 BN 2982 and CG 07 BN 2983, and that neither the ownership of the said vehicles had been transferred nor their registration numbers had been changed to CG 07 BQ 8680 and CG 07 BQ 8231. 9. The RTO report further states that the trucks bearing registration Nos. CG 07 BQ 8680 and CG 07 BQ 8231 were transferred from the ownership of one Ganesh Kumar Saw to co-accused Ram Kumar Yadav. It is also mentioned that the said vehicles were originally brought from Barrackpore (West Bengal) and were re- registered in the State of Chhattisgarh under the aforesaid registration numbers. The report of the RTO clearly demonstrates that the prosecution case is based on conjectures and assumptions. While the complainant has alleged that the trucks financed in the name of Rajesh Yadu were fraudulently transferred to co-accused Ram Kumar Yadav, the official RTO record does not substantiate the said allegation. On the contrary, it shows that the vehicles registered in the name of Ram Kumar Yadav were originally owned by Ganesh Kumar Saw and were 6 brought from Barrackpore, West Bengal, and registered in Chhattisgarh on 24.04.2019 (Annexure P/2 colly). Hence, this petition. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. are wholly false, fabricated and concocted with an oblique motive to falsely implicate the petitioner in the present matter. The F.I.R. narrates a cooked-up story without any specific material attributing a concrete role to the petitioner. It is further submitted that even if the allegations contained in the F.I.R. are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, the same are general and omnibus in nature. There is no specific overt act attributed to the petitioner. The F.I.R. appears to have been drafted in a mechanical manner, without disclosing any independent and specific role of the petitioner, and has been registered only to harass her. The petitioner is merely the wife of the borrower, Rajesh Yadu, and stood as a guarantor for the purpose of financing the trucks in question. The liability of a guarantor is limited to repayment of dues in the event of default. It is not the legal duty or responsibility of a guarantor to supervise or monitor how the borrower uses the financed vehicles. There is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner had any role in the alleged forgery, alteration of chassis numbers, transfer of vehicles, or refinancing. It is submitted that a supplementary charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner only on 16.01.2026, nearly seven years after registration of the F.I.R. 7 dated 21.06.2019. Despite such prolonged investigation, the Investigating Agency has failed to collect or produce any material evidence demonstrating the petitioner’s involvement or knowledge of the alleged offences. No incriminating document, recovery, or independent witness statement has been placed on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. It is pertinent to point out that while the charge-sheet against co-accused Ram Kumar Yadav was filed as early as 18.09.2019, the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused after an unexplained and inordinate delay of nearly seven years. Such belated implication, without fresh or cogent material, clearly reflects non-application of mind and mala fide intention. The charge-sheet itself relies upon the inquiry conducted by the Regional Transport Officer (RTO), Durg. The RTO, vide report dated 13.09.2019, categorically stated that Rajesh Yadu remains the registered owner of trucks bearing Nos. CG07BN2982 and CG07BN2983, and that neither the ownership nor the registration numbers of the said vehicles were altered to CG07BQ8680 and CG07BQ8231. The RTO report further clarifies that trucks bearing Nos. CG07BQ8680 and CG07BQ8231 were originally owned by Ganesh Kumar Saw, brought from Barrackpore (West Bengal), and subsequently transferred to co- accused Ram Kumar Yadav. Thus, the prosecution story that the vehicles financed in the name of Rajesh Yadu were fraudulently altered and transferred to co-accused Ram Kumar Yadav is not substantiated by official RTO records. On the contrary, the 8 documentary evidence collected during investigation demolishes the very foundation of the allegations. The prosecution case, therefore, rests merely on conjectures and assumptions. 11. Learned counsel places reliance upon the celebrated judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down illustrative categories of cases where inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution may be exercised to quash criminal proceedings. It is respectfully submitted that the present case squarely falls within the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra). In view of the above facts and settled legal position, it is humbly submitted that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of law and result in grave miscarriage of justice. Hence, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to quash the F.I.R., supplementary charge-sheet dated 16.01.2026, and all consequential proceedings arising out of Crime No. 618/2019, in the interest of justice. 12. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that the present petition seeking quashment of the F.I.R. and supplementary charge-sheet is wholly misconceived and deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. It is submitted that the allegations in the F.I.R., read as a whole, clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences including cheating, criminal 9 breach of trust, forgery and conspiracy. The F.I.R. specifically alleges that the accused persons, including the present petitioner, acted in concert and in furtherance of a common intention to alter the chassis numbers and registration numbers of the financed vehicles and to get them refinanced without obtaining NOC from the original financer. The contention of the petitioner that the allegations are general and omnibus is incorrect. The F.I.R. specifically names the petitioner and attributes to her active participation in the conspiracy along with her husband and co- accused. The role attributed to the petitioner is not merely that of a guarantor but as a participant in the alleged fraudulent acts. At this stage, a meticulous examination of evidence is neither permissible nor warranted. 13. It is further submitted that the investigation culminated in filing of a supplementary charge-sheet against the petitioner on 16.01.2026 after collection of material evidence. The sufficiency or reliability of such material cannot be gone into in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the High Court should not embark upon an appreciation of evidence at the stage of quashing. The delay in filing the supplementary charge-sheet against the petitioner does not vitiate the proceedings. Investigation is a continuous process, and if during investigation sufficient material is found against a person, he or she can be arraigned as an accused at a later stage. The mere lapse of time does not render the prosecution illegal, 10 particularly when the trial has yet to commence in full. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the RTO report is misplaced. The RTO report is only one piece of evidence and does not conclusively exonerate the petitioner. The prosecution case is based on the totality of material collected during investigation, including documentary evidence and statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The defence sought to be raised by the petitioner involves disputed questions of fact which can only be adjudicated during trial. The argument that the petitioner was merely a guarantor and therefore cannot be held liable is also untenable. Criminal liability is not determined solely by contractual status but by participation in the alleged acts. The prosecution case alleges conspiracy and active involvement, which is a matter of evidence to be tested before the learned trial Court. The personal circumstances of the petitioner, including her educational background or career aspirations, cannot be a ground for quashing criminal proceedings when serious allegations of forgery and cheating are involved. Criminal proceedings cannot be stifled merely on the basis of potential future hardship. Learned counsel for the State submits that the judgment in Bhajan Lal (supra), does not assist the petitioner. The present case does not fall within any of the illustrative categories laid down therein. The allegations in the F.I.R. prima facie constitute cognizable offences; they are neither absurd nor inherently improbable. The plea of mala fide is bald and unsupported by cogent material. It is a 11 settled principle of law that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. Where the F.I.R. and charge-sheet disclose a prima facie case, the matter must proceed to trial and the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations must be determined on the basis of evidence. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the present petition and permit the learned trial Court to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 15. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, this Court finds that the F.I.R., when read as a whole, contains specific allegations that the petitioner acted in concert with the co-accused in allegedly altering the chassis numbers and registration numbers of the vehicles and in getting them refinanced without obtaining NOC from the original financier. Whether these allegations are ultimately proved or not is a matter of trial. 16. As per the written report dated 21.06.2019, it was alleged that the accused had paid a few initial instalments of the financed vehicles but thereafter failed to pay the remaining instalments. It was further alleged that the accused Rajesh Yadu, along with his wife Rinki Yadav and his brother-in-law Ram Kumar Yadav, entered into a criminal conspiracy and, by fabricating documents, transferred the vehicles in the name of Ram Kumar Yadav. It is 12 alleged that truck bearing registration numbers CG 07 BN 2982 and CG 07 BN 2983 were fraudulently changed to registration numbers CG 07 BQ 8680 and CG 07 BQ 8231 respectively. Further, the original chassis numbers MB1NACHD9JPDD5141 and MB1NACHD7JPDD5140 were tampered with and forged as MB1NACHD9HPDY9375 and MB1NACHD9HPDY9364 respectively. During investigation, the accused Ram Kumar Yadav was found in possession of the said trucks. On 22.09.2019, the vehicles were seized from near RTO Office, in front of Road, near Popda Petrol Pump, Utai Road, along with relevant documents, based on a memorandum. The original records were obtained from Ashok Leyland (Hinduja Finance/Ahuja Company), and details of spare parts were procured from the company’s authorized mechanical specialist. The spare parts list of the company was compared with the parts of the seized vehicles. Upon verification, it was found that the engine number, axle number, gearbox number, tyre numbers, battery number, steering box number and other parts matched with the company’s original records, except for the chassis number and registration number. This verification was conducted and confirmed by the expert mechanic of Ashok Leyland, Mr. Mohammad Ehsan. In the present case, accused Ram Kumar Yadav was arrested on 22.06.2019 and was sent to judicial remand at Central Jail, Durg. The other accused, namely Rajesh Yadu and Rinki Yadav, were absconding at that time. During investigation, written 13 correspondence was made with RTO Durg and the relevant original documents were obtained and seized. It was found that in respect of the original trucks bearing registration numbers CG 07 BN 2983 and CG 07 BN 2982, the registration numbers were altered to CG 07 BQ 8231 and CG 07 BQ 8680 respectively by tampering with the painted numerical markings on the front and rear body of the vehicles. Further, the original chassis number plates were removed and replaced with forged chassis number plates bearing numbers MB1NACHD9HPDY9375 and MB1NACHD9HPDY9364, which were affixed and punched on the chassis. As per RTO records, truck bearing registration number WB 23 AH 4125 (West Bengal) was transferred as CG 07 BQ 8231 and truck bearing registration number WB 23 AH 4126 was transferred as CG 07 BQ 8680, supported by documents. These vehicles were sold by Ganesh Prasad to Ram Kumar Yadav and were legally transferred from West Bengal registration numbers to Chhattisgarh registration numbers. It was found that the chassis numbers and registration numbers of these legally transferred West Bengal vehicles were fraudulently used in the complainant’s original vehicles in order to conceal evidence. Accordingly, Section 201 IPC (causing disappearance of evidence) was also added in the case. Accused Rajesh Yadu and Rinki Yadav were absconding. Investigation regarding the transferred West Bengal vehicles is still pending. There is a strong possibility of involvement of other accused persons. 14 17. The scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 B.N.S.S.) is well settled. The inherent powers of the High Court are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in cases where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence, or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact. 18. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the RTO report pertains to appreciation of evidence and defence material. Such issues require evaluation during trial and cannot form the basis for quashing proceedings at the threshold. Similarly, the delay in filing the supplementary charge-sheet, by itself, does not render the prosecution illegal, particularly when the investigation is stated to have resulted in collection of material against the petitioner. 19. This Court does not find that the present case falls within any of the illustrative categories enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra). The allegations in the F.I.R. prima facie disclose cognizable offences and cannot be said to be inherently absurd or improbable. The plea of mala fide is not substantiated by any unimpeachable material on record. 20. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS) is made out. 15 21. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Bablu