[2025:RJ-JP:13507]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1322/2022 Mamraj Meena S/o Prahlad Ram Meena, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Ghatwa Tehsil Nawa District Nagaur (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p

2. Gunjan Kumawat S/o Shri Gyan Chand, Aged About 39 Years, Present R/o Khandela House, Ambar Towar Ke piche, SC Road, Jalupura, Jaipur City (North) (Rajasthan), Permanent R/o 13, Gopi Nagar, Jaisinghpura, Khor, Jaipur City (North) (Rajasthan)

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1670/2022 Rohit Kumar S/o Chhote Lal, R/o Jhajhod, P.S. Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu ----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P

2. Gunjan Kumawat S/o Shri Gyanchand, Aged About 38 Years, R/o House No. 13, Gopi Nagar, Jaisinghpura, Khor, Jaipur At Present House No. 6, Khandela House Behind Amber Tower Sansar Chandra Road, P.S. Jalupura Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parveen Balwada with Mr. Mohit Balwada, Ms. Bhawna Choudhary & Mr. Sunil Shekhawat Mr. Vijay Punia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shantnu Bansal Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

18/03/2025

1. These two revision petitions were preferred by petitioners accused Mamraj and Rohit Kumar aggrieved from order dated 27.06.2022 in Sessions Case No.17/2022 arising out of FIR No.63/2022 registered at PS Jaisinghpura Khor, District Jaipur City (North), Jaipur.

2. Both the petitioners accused have challenged impugned order dated 27.06.2022 in sessions case No.17/2022 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases) No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur, whereby both the accused were charged along with Sunil Gaur under Section 11(iv)/12 of POCSO Act, alternatively, Section 354D IPC and Section 67, 67B of IT Act. The counsel for petitioners has referred order dated 25.07.2022 in SB Criminal Revision Petition No.1083/2022 titled as ‘Sunil Gaur Vs. State of Rajasthan’ wherein a Co-ordinate Bench while allowing the revision petition has discharged Sunil Gaur from the offence charged against him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while referring order dated 25.07.2022, wherein a co-accused Sunil Gaur who was also charged was discharged, has submitted that the case of present petitioners is on better footing than Sunil Gaur. He also submitted that no recovery was effected form the conscious possession of both the petitioners which would be sufficient to frame a charge under sections 67 and 67-B of IT Act. He also referred the finding recorded by police and submitted that on basis of a communication detail between victim and present petitioners, a charge-sheet was filed against petitioners by police. He also referred the statement of victim recorded before the trial court during trial and submitted that even in her statement before the trial court, victim has not substantiated any allegation made in charge-sheet. He further referred the conduct of complainant and submitted that the complainant has registered a complaint after an extraordinary delay of three months but without any explanation. He also referred the material available on record and submitted that even the ownership of sim was not established from the material available on record. He further referred the material and submitted that mere texting or calling anyone by any means is not sufficient to invoke provision either under the POCSO Act or the IT Act. At last, he submitted that the trial court has ignored the settled principle of law while framing the charge and without considering the FSL report or any other material has just framed the charge in mechanical manner.

4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that till date more than eight witnesses were recorded and only few formal witnesses are left. He also submitted that at the stage of charge, this court cannot