JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.

1. By way of this criminal writ petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 19/02/2019, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No. 16, Jaipur whereby he has returned the file for fresh investigation to the SHO, Police Station Sadar, Jaipur (West), Jaipur after the final report was submitted by the Police.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of a written complaint made by the complainant-respondent no. 4 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., an FIR No. 273/2018 was registered against the petitioner under Section 323, 341, 376, 377, 384 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Jaipur (West) on 07/06/2018. After investigation, the Police found the entire case to be wholly false and fabricated and in this regard, a negative final report was submitted after recording the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C.. After the negative final report was submitted in the Competent Court, the respondent no. 4-complainant moved an application for re-opening the case with the sole purpose to earn money illegally from the petitioner with the collusion of her husband. It is further submitted that the FIR and proceedings conducted thereto may accordingly be quashed and set aside. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment rendered in Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat (2009) 6 SCC 332; Prashant Bharti Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2013) 9 SCC 293; Tilak Raj Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh 2016(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 384; Baldev Gora Vs. State of Rajasthan 2018(1) WLC (Raj.) 215; Shivashankar @ Shiva Vs. State of Karnataka & anr. 2018 Cr.L.R. (SC) 502; Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra & anr. 2019(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 638 and Hari Ram Vs. The State of Raj. & anr. (SB Criminal Revision No. 7/2017), decided on 05/09/2017.

3. Reply to the instant criminal writ petition has been filed by the respondents no. 1 to 3 wherein it has been stated that from the evidence which has come on record, the respondent No. 4-complainant (Smt. Geeta Devi) was having a family dispute with her husband for last 8 to 9 years. She left her matrimonial home and came in contact with the petitioner-Vajir Singh who is a married person having two children. The wife of petitioner-Vajir Singh used to treat the respondent no. 4-Smt. Geeta Devi as her sister. Vajir Singh was having a live in relationship with Smt. Geeta Devi for last eight years. Smt. Geeta Devi had filed a complaint against Vajir Singh under Section 323, 341, 376, 377, 384 IPC which was found to be false after the statement of Smt. Geeta Devi was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jaipur West, Jaipur directed to final report which was chalked out on 30/06/2018 and filed before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No. 16, Jaipur Metro on 09/07/2018. Thus, as per reply of the Police, no case is made out against the petitioner.

4. A reply has also been filed by the respondent no. 4-complainant wherein she has stated that she was living with the petitioner for 11 years with the promise that the petitioner would marry her. However, after 11 years, the petitioner left the rented house of the respondent no. 4 and she, therefore, lodged a complaint under Section 323, 341, 376, 377, 384 IPC. When the petitioner came back to the respondent no. 4 and promised to live with her, as husband and wife, the respondent no. 4 gave her statement to the police on the basis of which final report was submitted. However, as the petitioner again left the respondent no. 4, she submitted an application for fresh investigation. An agreement was also entered for live in relationship between the parties with the understanding that the child born out of their live in relationship would be entitled for inheritance of the properties of the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4-complainant submitted that the petitioner is