As per case facts, two trucks were financed with the petitioner as a guarantor. The principal borrower defaulted on installments and absconded with the vehicles. Allegations surfaced regarding the forgery ... of chassis and registration numbers and subsequent refinancing without obtaining a No Objection Certificate. A supplementary charge sheet was later filed against the petitioner. The petitioner approached the court seeking to quash this charge sheet and related proceedings, arguing false implication, lack of specific role, and an inordinate delay in filing the charge sheet. The question arose whether the FIR and supplementary charge sheet, when read comprehensively, disclosed prima facie cognizable offenses sufficient to proceed with the trial, or if the allegations were groundless, warranting quashing. Finally, the Court found specific allegations of the petitioner acting in concert with co-accused to alter vehicle numbers and refinance them without NOC. The Court emphasized that the proof of these allegations is a matter for trial and that neither the RTO report nor the delay in filing the charge sheet conclusively exonerated the petitioner. Concluding that the allegations prima facie constituted cognizable offenses and did not fall into categories justifying quashing, the court dismissed the petition.