1 CGHC010301392026 2026:CGHC:34432-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 444 of 2026 1 - Himanshu Rathi S/o Jogendar Rathi, Aged About 29 Years, R/o HDD 260, Lane No.3, Near J.P. Chowk, Kabir Nagar Tatiband, Police Station Khamtarai, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - General Forest Division, Mahasamund, Through- Division Forest Officer, Mahasamund Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State. Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.08.17 12:02:14 +0530 2 2. The present petition under under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:- “10.1. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby quashing the impugned FIR (Anneure P/1) bearing Crime No.172/2026 dated 09.07.2026 registered at Police Station Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, insofar as the present petitioner Himanshu Rathi is concerned. 10.2 Direct the respondents not to arrest the petitioner and also not take any coercive steps against the petitioner in connection with FIR bearing Crime No.172/2026 dated 09.07.2026 registered at Police Station Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, during pendency of the present writ petition. 10.3 Grant protection to the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the investigation, subject to such conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, as the petitioner is ready and willing to assist the Investigating Agency and place all relevant facts regarding the NTPS NOC generated through the Government portal. 3 10.4 Pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts as mentioned in the petition are that, the case arises from the transportation of approximately 23,350 kilograms of Khair wood in vehicle bearing Registration No. CG-07-CM-5860. On 14.06.2026, an NTPS (National Transit Pass System) No Objection Certificate bearing No. AP/KU/K/KU-160 was generated/relied upon for transportation of the forest produce. Thereafter, on 17.06.2026, the aforesaid vehicle was intercepted near Pithora, at that time the driver produced the said NTPS NOC before the Forest authorities in support of the transportation. Subsequently, upon verification from the Forest Department, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, the authorities allegedly found that the said NTPS NOC had not been issued by the competent authority and treated the document as forged/unauthorised. On 04.07.2026, respondent No.2 submitted a written complaint requesting registration of a criminal case in relation to the alleged irregularities. Pursuant to the said complaint, respondent No.1 registered FIR bearing Crime No.172/2026 on 09.07.2026 at Police Station Pithora, District Mahasamund, against the petitioner and other co-accused for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner has been implicated principally on the allegation that he acted as a “middleman” in the transportation. However, according to the petitioner, the FIR does 4 not specify his precise role or attribute to him the creation, fabrication, alteration, uploading or manipulation of the disputed NTPS NOC. The petitioner pleaded that he bona fidely relied upon a document generated through the Government-operated NTPS portal and had no knowledge of any alleged irregularity. Aggrieved by his implication, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the FIR insofar as he is concerned, protection against coercive action, and permission to cooperate with the investigation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the allegations contained in the FIR are accepted in their entirety, no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. The FIR merely describes him as a “middleman” without specifying between whom he allegedly acted, what transaction he facilitated, what representation he made, or what particular act was committed by him. There is no allegation that the petitioner fabricated, altered, uploaded, manipulated or generated the disputed NTPS NOC, nor that he had access to or interfered with the Government NTPS portal. The petitioner further submits that the essential ingredients of cheating, forgery, use of forged document and criminal conspiracy are absent, as there is no allegation of deception, dishonest inducement, knowledge of the alleged forgery, prior agreement or meeting of minds with the co-accused. It is further submitted that the petitioner had bona fide relied upon an electronic document generated through the official Government-operated NTPS portal and had no reason to believe that the same was forged or unauthorised. The entire prosecution case is based upon documentary 5 and electronic evidence already available with the respondents, and no incriminating document, computer, laptop, printer or other electronic device has been recovered from the petitioner, rendering custodial interrogation unnecessary. The petitioner is willing to appear before the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the investigation. It is therefore argued that continuation of the proceedings against him, in the absence of specific allegations and material establishing his participation or criminal mens rea, would amount to abuse of the process of law and warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the FIR has been registered on the basis of material showing transportation of approximately 23,350 kilograms of Khair wood on the strength of an NTPS NOC which, upon verification from the Forest Department, Kurnool, was found to be unauthorised. The petitioner is alleged to have acted as a “middleman”, and his precise role, connection with the co- accused, and knowledge regarding the disputed document are matters of investigation. He further submits that the investigation is still going on and that the absence of detailed particulars in the FIR cannot, by itself, be a ground for quashing the proceedings when the allegations disclose suspected illegal transportation of forest produce by use of an allegedly forged or unauthorised transit document. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. In M/s Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of 6 Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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; iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in 7 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;” 8. In the present case the FIR bearing Crime No.172/2026, has been registered for offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution 8 case arises from the alleged transportation of 23,350 kilograms of Khair wood on the basis of an NTPS NOC which was subsequently found, upon verification from the Forest Department, Kurnool, to be unauthorised. The petitioner contends that the FIR merely describes him as a “middleman” and does not attribute any specific overt act, knowledge, dishonest intention, or participation in creation or manipulation of the disputed NOC, and therefore the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not disclosed. Per contra, the State submits that the petitioner’s precise role, his connection with the co-accused and his knowledge regarding the disputed document are matters of investigation and that the FIR should not be quashed at the threshold. 9. There are allegations in the FIR regarding transportation of 23,350 kilograms of Khair wood on the strength of an NTPS NOC which was subsequently found to be unauthorised. The petitioner’s precise role, including the allegation that he acted as a “middleman”, his connection with the other accused persons, and his knowledge, if any, regarding the disputed document, are matters relating to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the stage of investigation. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Neharika Infrastructure (supra), while considering a prayer for quashing, the Court is only required to examine whether the FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and is not expected to embark upon an enquiry into the truthfulness, reliability, or evidentiary value of 9 the allegations. 10. The investigation is still going on and no exceptional circumstance has been demonstrated to justify judicial interference with the statutory powers of the investigating agency. Whether the allegations ultimately stand substantiated, or whether the material collected during investigation supports the prosecution case, are matters to be considered by the competent court at the appropriate stage. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not fall within the exceptional categories warranting exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or the principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil