ORDER :

1. The present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 076/2019 registered at Police Station Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh for offences under Section 8 /15 of NDPS Act.

2. Earlier, the petitioner preferred S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No. 6800/2022 before this Court for quashing the aforementioned FIR. The said criminal misc. petition was dismissed by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dt. 04.11.2022 with liberty to the petitioner to put forth his defence by way of representation along with documentary as well as other evidence before the concerned Investigating Officer.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle carrying alleged contraband was initially registered in the name of Sales India Pvt. Ltd. At Gujarat. Thereafter, the said vehicle was purchased by one Karna Ram. When the police called the petitioner for interrogation, he came to know that the aforesaid vehicle is registered in his name at RTO Barmer and after obtaining registration certificate, sale letter, NOC etc. under the RTI Act, he found that the signatures made on those documents were forged. In pursuance of the order of this Court date 04.11.2022, the petitioner submitted representation along with documents before the Investigating Officer but the same were not considered. In these circumstances, the impugned FIR may be quashed. In the alternative, he prays that the Investigating Officer may be directed to send the signatures of the petitioner on the documents for registering the offending vehicle.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer of the petitioner.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and carefully gone through the case-diary.

6. The Investigating Officer has considered the representation filed by the petitioner and also obtained the relevant documents from the concerned Department. The police investigated the case thoroughly and has come to a conclusion that the petitioner is registered owner of the offending vehicle and therefore, a prima facie case is made out against him. So far as the contention that the petitioner is not registered owner of the vehicle, is concerned, the same shall be considered by the trial court at the time of framing of charge.

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Choudhary Bhajanlal & Ors. : [1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335], laid down guidelines for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR and criminal proceedings. The Court held:

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

1. Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not primafacie constitute any offen