1 2026:CGHC:2706-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 171 of 2026 1 - Hritik Tiwari S/o Shri Rakesh Tiwari Aged About 24 Years R/o Liladharpur Police Station- Kotwali District Sant Ravidas Nagar, District- Bhadohi (Uttar Pradesh) (As Per Annexure A/3) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretariat Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Superintendent Of Police District- Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Station House Officer Police Station- Singodha, District- Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Zafar Abbas, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 16 .01.2026 SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.01.20 14:45:32 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Zafar Abbas, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State/Respondent. 2. Present is a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, for quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet, order taking cognizance as well as proceeding of the Special Criminal Case No. 15 of 2025, pending before the learned Special Judge, NDPS, Saraipali, District Mahasamund and prayed the following relief: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this Criminal Misc. Petition and may quash the FIR dated 10.12.2024 with Charge-sheet No. 34 of 2025 dated 20.05.2025, cognizance and summoning order dated 27.05.2025 in Special Criminal Case No. 15 of 2025 (State of Chattisgarh Vs. Ramasray Rajbhar and others), cognizance taken by the learned Special Judge, Saraipali, Dist.- Mahasamund (C.G.) and further this Hon'ble Court may quash the entire Criminal Proceeding of Special Criminal Case No. 15 of 2025 (State of Chattisgarh vs. Ramasray Rajbhar and others) against the applicant namely Hritik Tiwari at Police Station Singodha District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, registered as Crime No. 0128/2024 and he may set free from the aforesaid charges, in the interest of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused in the offence of Crime No. 128/2024 registered at Police Station 3 Singhoda, District Mahasamund, on 10.12.2024 for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short "NDPS Act'). It is alleged that on 10.12.2024, on being secret information the police of Police Station Singhoda, intersected a Swift Dezire Car bearing No. UP65EWB933, coming from Orrisa to Chhattisgarh, and on being search total 144 kg Ganja was recovered from the car. Two accused persons Ramsare Rajbhar and Deepak Singh were the inmates of the car from whom the said Ganja was seized in their memorandum statement recorded on 10.12.2024, they disclosed that they are transporting Ganja for the present petitioner Hritik Tiwari who is the resident of Bhadohi. Initially the FIR was registered against the two accused persons Ramsare Rajbhar and Deepak Singh and after their memorandum statement the present petitioner has also been made accused in the case. The present petitioner is absconding and charge-sheet has been filed against two accused persons Ramsare Rajbhar and Deepak Singh for the offence under Section 20(b) and 29(1) of NDPS Act, before the learned trial Court. The petitioner is challenging the FIR, charge-sheet and order taking cognizance and also the entire proceedings of the special criminal case in the present petition. 4. Earlier the petitioner had challenged the FIR in CRMP No. 3359 of 2025, however, on 07.11.2025, when the case came up for hearing, it was pointed by the learned counsel appearing for the 4 State about the filing of the charge-sheet showing the petitioner as absconder and then the said CRMP No. 3395/2025 was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to law, if aggrieved by the charge-sheet. Thereafter, the present petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the order taking cognizance by the learned trial Court is illegal as from the order-sheet dated 27.05.2025 it clearly reflects that the case diary was not produced before the learned trial Court at the time when the warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner. On that very day, i.e. 27.05.2025 charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons, but it was filed without the case diary. Even the statement of the investigating officer was recorded in absence of a case diary. He would further submits that there is absolutely no evidence against the petitioner that he is involved in the offence. He was not present on the spot, no any incriminating article or contraband seized from him. Except the memorandum statement, there is no evidence in the charge-sheet against the petitioner to connect him with the offence in question. He would also submit that the contents of the memorandum statement evidence is an inadmissible piece of evidence and as such, there is no evidence in the charge sheet against the petitioner. It is further submitted by him that there is no prima facie evidence against the petitioner in the entire charge-sheet and the proceedings against him is the abuse of the process of law as well as the Court. He would further 5 submit that there is non-compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act in search and seizure proceedings from the accused persons. Therefore, the petition may be allowed and the criminal proceedings, charge-sheet as well as order taking cognizance against the petitioner may be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there are sufficient material against the petitioner that he, along with the co-accused persons, committed the offence. The allegation against the present petitioner is that on his instance, the other twe accused persons Ramsare and Deepak, were transporting the Ganja for him. They did not have any documents with respect to possession of the said contraband. The charge-sheet has also been filed under Section 29(1) of the NDPS Act, which provides for the abetment of the offence under the NDPS Act. From the memorandum statement of the accused persons, they disclosed the name of the present petitioner that they are transporting the Ganja for him. Thus, there are sufficient evidence and material to proceed with the criminal case against the petitioner. He would also submit that the petitioner is still absconding and therefore, the present petition on his behalf is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition, 6 8. From perusal of the entire material annexed with the charge- sheet, it transpires that on 10.12.2024, total 144 kg Ganja has been seized by the Singhoda Police from the car of the two accused persons Ramsare Rajbhar and Deepak Singh. On their interrogation, they disclosed in their memorandum statement that on the instance of the present petitioner Hritik Tiwari they are transporting Ganja from Orissa and going to Village Bhadohi to the petitioner Hritik Tiwari. He also gave them the advance of Rs. 4,000/- and had a telephonic conversation with them. The petitioner is absconding and still out of the custody despite search by the police party. From perusal of the material annexed with the charge-sheet, it also transpires that the mandatory provisions of Section 42, 50, 52, 52(A), 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act are complied. with by the Police party during the search and seizure proceeding. The allegation against the petitioner is that he abetted the other two accused persons and hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit the offence, which is the offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. Section 29 of NDPS Act, is necessary to notice here which reads as under: “29. Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy.- (1) Whoever abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable under this Chapter, shall, whether such offence be or be not committed in consequence of such abetment or in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy, and notwithstanding anything 7 contained in section 116 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), be punishable with the punishment provided for the offence. (2) A person abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence, within the meaning of this section, who, in India abets or is a party to the criminal conspiracy to the commission of any act in a place without and beyond India which- (a) would constitute an offence if committed within India; or (b) under the laws of such place, is an offence relating to narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances having all the legal conditions required to constitute it such an offence the same as or analogous to the legal conditions required to constitute it an offence punishable under this Chapter, if committed within India.” 9. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that without producing the case diary warrant of arrest against the petitioner cannot be issued is having no force for the reason that on 27.05.2025, charge-sheet has been filed against the accused persons, the statement of the investigating officer with respect to absconding of the petitioner was recorded, the entire document of the charge-sheet was supplied to the other accused persons in physical form as well as in pendrive as provided under Section 230 of the BNSS, 2023 and the learned trial Court has also accepted the charge-sheet. Since the present petitioner is 8 absconding, the warrant of arrest has been issued against him, for which the production of the ase diary is not required. 10. In the matter of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in AIR Online 2021 SC 192, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 23 held as under :- “23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under: (i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; (ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; 9 (iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; (iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). (v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; (vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; (vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; (viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; (ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; (x) Save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;” 10 11. From perusal of the material annexed with the charge-sheet and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that there is sufficient prima facie evidence against the petitioner to proceed with the case. Further, the petitioner is absconding and therefore, on this ground also, we are not inclined to interfere with the petition of the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the present petition is devoid of merit, liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika/alok