##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:47200]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1363/2026 CNR: RJHC010883012026 | URN: CRLR / 3018U / 2026 Sayabh Khan S/o Dhadhal Khan, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Nagraja, Khurhi, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan,india ----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Basir Khan S/o Mohammad Husain Khan, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Nagraja,khurhi, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhagirath Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nishant Bora Mr. RameshDewasi,Dy.G.A.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

Reportable-

Date of Conclusion of Arguments : 28/09/2026 Date on which Order is Reserved : 28/09/2026 Full Order or Operative Part : Full Order Date of Pronouncement : 30/09/2026 By the Court:-

1. The present criminal revision petition under Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by the accused-petitioner assailing the order dated 22.06.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Sessions Case No.09/2026 arising out of FIR No.17/2026 registered at Police Station Khuhadi, District Jaisalmer, whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 137(2), 74 and 78(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 7/8 and 11/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 84 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

2. The gravamen of the grievance raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the learned Court below has proceeded to frame the aforesaid charges in a mechanical manner, without adverting to the material collected during investigation and, more particularly, without examining whether the statements of the prosecutrix themselves disclose the foundational ingredients of the offences for which the petitioner has been called upon to face trial. It is contended that the order dated 22.06.2026 does not disclose any discernible reasoning as to what particular material constituted the prima facie basis for each of the distinct offences framed against the petitioner.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that FIR No.17/2026 came to be registered at Police Station Khuhadi, District Jaisalmer, on 17.04.2026 on the allegation that the minor daughter of the complainant, Shivani, aged about 15 years, had left her house during the intervening night of 16/17.04.2026 and was subsequently found travelling with the present petitioner. During investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered and her statement under Section 180 BNSS was recorded on 17.04.2026, while her statement under Section 183 BNSS was thereafter recorded before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer on 18.04.2026. In her police statement, she stated, inter alia, that she had known the petitioner for about eight months, used to communicate with him through Snapchat, that on the intervening night of 16.04.2026 she herself asked the petitioner to go to Ajmer for the purpose of marriage, thereafter voluntarily went to his house and accompanied him in his vehicle, and that during the journey the petitioner neither committed any wrong act with her nor did any physical or sexual relationship take place between them. In her statement recorded before the learned Magistrate under Section 183 BNSS, she further stated that her family members desired to marry her with one Javed, whom she did not like, and that for this reason she voluntarily went with the petitioner in his vehicle on 16.04.2026; she specifically stated that the petitioner neither threatened nor intimidated her nor committed any wrong act with her. The record further records that, being below eighteen years of age and having no guardian accompanying her, she desired to give her statement in the presence of a woman constable; that she was separately afforded sufficient time to think and understand; that she thereafter voluntarily gave her statement without fear or pressure; and that the s