##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 265/2019

Rajesh @ Pappi S/o Shri Dhupi, aged about 40 Years, R/o Khanua, Ps Rupwas, District Bharatpur

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

2. Sunita W/o Balveer, R/o Khanua, PS Rupwas, District Bharatpur

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Nikhlesh Katara For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vivek Choudhary, PP

Mr.Anshul Sharma

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

30/03/2026

1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned F.I.R. No.514/2018, registered at Police Station Roopwas, District Bharatpur for the offences punishable

under Section 376 IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix ‘S’, who is a major lady and owing to some family property dispute between the parties, a quarrel occurred between them for which a complaint for the offences under Section 107, 116 & 151 IPC was registered by the petitioner against the complainant/prosecutrix along-with other family persons on 11.06.2018. Counsel submits that in counterblast to the aforesaid complaint, the prosecutrix has lodged two FIRs. In the first of these FIRs, bearing No.508/2018

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 10:50:45 AM)

(Downloaded on 11/04/2026 at 05:52:33 PM)

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-265/2019]

registered on 12.10.2018 at Police Station Roopwas, District Bharatpur, allegation of quarrel and outraging of modesty has been levelled by the prosecutrix ‘S’. Counsel submits that four days thereafter, a successive second F.I.R. bearing No.514/2018 was registered on 16.10.2018 at Police Station Roopwas, District Bharatpur, wherein vague, false and concocted allegations of rape have been levelled against the petitioner alleging therein under the effect of black magic, rape was committed by the petitioner with her since last more than 10 years. Counsel submits that no prudent person can rely upon such allegations and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the impugned F.I.R., hence, under

these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-respondent opposes the prayer raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that allegations of rape have been levelled against the petitioner in the impugned F.I.R. by the prosecutrix as well as in her statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted

and the instant petition is liable to be rejected.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and

perused the material available on record.

5. Perusal of the allegations levelled in the impugned F.I.R. and the contents of the same indicates that the allegations reveal commission of cognizable offence and the correctness of allegations cannot be examined, adjudicated and adjudged by this Court at this stage, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 10:50:45 AM)

(Downloaded on 11/04/2026 at 05:52:33 PM)

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-265/2019]

contained under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Certainly, this task has been

assigned to the Investigating Agency.

6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner is supposed to file a representation before the Investigating Officer with the grounds which have been taken before this Court including the plea that on an earlier occasion as well, no allegations of rape have been levelled against the petitioner and impugned F.I.R. has been lodged in counterblast to the complaint filed by the petitioner. The Investigating Officer would examine the same and submit the report of conclusion before the competent

Court of law strictly in accordance with law.

7. The Deputy Superintendent of Police of the concerned Circle

is directed to monitor the investigation.

8. With the aforesaid observation, the instant criminal misc. petition stands di