[2025:RJ-JP:47827]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7971/2019 Sagarmal Prajapat S/o Shri Choturam Prajapat, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Gunsi Luhara, Niwai Tonk, Raj.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

2. XXXXXXXXXXX R/o 3. XXXXXXXXXXX R/o ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shubham Khunteta, Adv. for Mr. Deepak Chauhan, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP For Complainant(s) : Mr. Amitabh Jatav HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

25/11/2025

1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC by the petitioner for quashing of First Information Report (FIR) No.333/2019, registered at Police Station Kotwali Sikar, District Sikar, for offence punishable under Section

363 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR was registered on the basis of a written report submitted by the respondent No.2 on 18.06.2019. Stating in this report, it was alleged that his minor daughter ‘P’, aged about 17 years, is a student of B.A. 1st year who is missing since 18.06.2019, at 10:00AM in the morning. It was further alleged that a boy named ‘S’ (petitioner herein), who lived in the house of the complainant as a tenant, had taken the complainant's minor daughter with him. The complainant made efforts to search the petitioner and his missing daughter, but he could not find them anywhere. On the basis of the said written report, Police registered the FIR against the petitioner. Hence, this criminal misc. petition for quashing of the impugned FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present FIR has been lodged with malafide intentions because the petitioner and the daughter of respondent No.2 were in a consensual relationship, and she went with the petitioner on her own volition. Counsel asserts that respondent No.2, being unhappy with the said relationship, lodged the present FIR based on false averments. Counsel further submits that vide order dated 17.02.2020, further proceedings in the impugned FIR were stayed by this Court after the respondent No.3 (the alleged victim in this case) appeared before the Court and submitted that she had voluntarily gone with the petitioner. Counsel submits that during the pendency of this petition, respondent No.3 returned back to her parental home, but after some time, she was maltreated in her parental home and respondent No.2 intended to marry her against her wish. Counsel contends that in these circumstances, respondent No.3 again left her parental home and presently, she is residing with the petitioner as his wife and they are leading a peaceful and happy married life. Counsel further states that when the respondent No.3 left her parental home on the subsequent occasion, another FIR No.671/2019, was lodged by respondent No.2 against the petitioner in the same Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 457, 380, 363, 366 & 120B of the IPC. In the said FIR, on completion of investigation, Police filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC. Counsel submits that upon completion of trial, the petitioner was acquitted in that matter by the learned Additional Session Judge No.1, Sikar vide judgment dated 22.08.2023 passed in Sessions Case No.286/2021, after considering the testimony of respondent No.3 wherein she clearly stated that she was not abducted by the petitioner and she voluntarily left the parental home on her own volition as her parents wanted to marry her against her wish and in these circumstances, she had no other option but to leave the parental home. She further testified that her father had lodged a false case against the petitioner.

4. Counsel thus, prays that in light of the guidelines issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (1992 AIR 604), the impugned FIR may be quashed.

5. No one has appeared on behalf