[2026:RJ-JP:16144]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7945/2022 Kamlesh Saini S/o Shri Dayal Saini, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ward No. 02, Nayakwala, Tijara, District Alwar (Raj).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

2. Nando S/o Ramhet, R/o Village Naunera, Kaman, Jurhera, District Bharatpur (Raj),.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Panwar for Mr. Martand Pratap Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP with Ms. Neha Goyal JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

17/04/2026

1. The instant misc. petition is listed before this Court in pur- suance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 773/2026, decided on 15.01.2026), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that in various matters, interim orders have been passed in criminal revi- sion petitions and petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as a re- sult of which trial relating to serious offences such as murder, rape, dacoity, dowry death, etc., could not proceed and remained stalled/held up due to the passage of considerable time.

2. Directions have been issued to this Court and other High Courts to take up such like matters which are pending since long, on priority and decide the same expeditiously without deferring the hearings to subsequent dates.

3. By way of filing the instant petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned FIR No. 251/2022, registered with Police Station Jurhera, District Bharatpur for the offences punishable un- der Sections 363, 366 & 376-D IPC and a prayer has been made to quash the entire proceedings arising out of the same.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the pros- ecutrix is a major lady aged 20 years. She has solemnized regis- tered marriage with the petitioner on 15.06.2022. He further sub- mits that as per the allegations levelled by the mother of the pros- ecutrix in the impugned FIR, the offence of rape has been commit- ted upon the prosecutrix. Counsel further submits that when the statements of the prosecutrix were recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Bhi- wadi Mukam, Bhiwadi, she has admitted the factum of her mar- riage with the petitioner. She has submitted that her family mem- bers were not happy with their marriage and they threatened them with dire consequences. Counsel further submits that look- ing to the statements of the prosecutrix, who is the legally wed- ded wife of the petitioner, no alleged offence is made out and the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor oppose the prayer.

6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

7. The main allegation levelled by the mother of the pros- ecutrix, against the petitioner in the impugned FIR pertains to the offence of ‘Rape’ alleged to have been committed by the petitioner upon her daughter. The offence of rape is punishable under Sec- tion 376 IPC and the same has been defined under Section 375 IPC.

8. It is worthy here to quote the definition of "rape" as pre-

scribed under Section 375 of IPC, which reads as under:

375. Rape.- A man is said to commit "rape" who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances fall-

ing under any of the six following descriptions:--

First.- Against her will.

Secondly.- Without her consent.

Thirdly.- With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested, in fear of death or of hurt.

Fourthly.- With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.

Fifthly.- With her consent when, at the time of giv- ing such consent, by reason of unsoundne