ORDER :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made for quashing the impugned F.I.R. No.281/2021 registered at the Police Station Harmada, District Jaipur City (West) for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 384, 420 & 120B IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecutrix ‘SK’ is a major lady, aged around 19 years at the time of filing of this petition and her date of birth is 11.09.2002. She along-with the petitioner submitted an application under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (for short, ‘the Act of 1954’) for solemnizing their marriage before the Marriage Officer/ A.D.M. (IV), Jaipur, District Jaipur on 10.03.2021. Counsel submits that at the time of submitting the aforesaid application, the age of the prosecutrix was 18 years and 5 months. Counsel further submits that as per the procedure and provisions contained under the Act of 1954, one month notice was issued to the family members of the petitioner as well as the prosecutrix and thereafter, they re-appeared before the Marriage Officer and submitted their affidavits along-with affidavits of three witnesses. Subsequently, their statements were recorded and after perusal of their affidavits along-with affidavits of the three witnesses who were present, their marriage was solemnized by the Marriage Officer on 12.04.2021 and a Marriage Certificate in this regard was also issued on the same day. Counsel submits that the factum of marriage has not been disputed by the petitioner, but at the later stage, the same was disputed by the respondent- complainant. Hence, both of them approached the Family Court No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur, where, the petitioner submitted an application under Section 22 of the Act of 1954 for restitution of conjugal rights, whereas, the respondent- complainant/prosecutrix submitted an application under Section 25 of the Act of 1954 for annulment of the marriage.

3. Counsel submits that the aforementioned applications submitted by the petitioner as well as by the prosecutrix were jointly decided and rejected by the Court of Judge, Family Court No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur vide order dated 15.07.2025, against which both of them separately approached this Court by way of filing two different civil miscellaneous appeals and the same are lying pending before this Court for adjudication on merits.

4. Counsel submits that in the meantime, on 03.06.2021, i.e., after almost two months of their marriage, the instant impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by the prosecutrix with vague allegations stating therein that the petitioner has been committing rape upon her for last more than one month and on 12.04.2021, i.e., on the day of their marriage, rape was again committed upon her and she was blackmailed to sign the marriage papers before the Marriage Officer/ ADM (IV), Jaipur, District Jaipur. Counsel submits that the aforesaid story is highly unbelievable and has been created by the prosecutrix. Counsel further submits that the prosecutrix is legally wedded wife of the petitioner, hence, under these circumstances, the alleged offence is not made out against the petitioner.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608.

6. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made hereinabove, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed and set- aside.

7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-respondent opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that as per the allegations levelled in the impugned F.I.R., the complainant-respondent was a minor at the time of solemnization of the marriage under the Act of 1954 and rape was committed upon her one month before the lodging of the impugned F.