Back
Love, Betrayal, and a Quashed FIR: Rajasthan HC Delivers Justice in Twisted Rape Case
In a scathing rebuke to repeated legal filings and fabricated claims, the , led by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand , quashed an FIR against siblings Yashraj Bhardwaj and Ishita Bhardwaj. The court ruled that a second FIR over identical rape allegations was an after the victim withdrew her initial complaint—and that merely sending abortion pills doesn't constitute an offence under without proof of forceful administration.
This decision, reported on , stems from petitions under , prompted by Supreme Court directives to expedite stalled serious cases like rape.
A Consensual Bond Turns Sour
The saga began in when victim 'AG', a major, met Yashraj Bhardwaj and entered a consensual live-in relationship that lasted until . Disputes arose, leading 'AG' to file a private complaint on , before the , alleging rape on marriage pretext ( ).
Shockingly, just days later—on —'AG' checked into Hotel Moti Mahal, Pushkar, with Yashraj, as confirmed by the hotel register and staff statement under . Unaware of the complaint, Yashraj faced a second FIR on , at Jawahar Circle Police Station, Jaipur ( FIR No. 365/2020 , ), mirroring the first complaint verbatim.
The original complaint lingered until , when 'AG' personally withdrew it, signing the order sheet. Meanwhile, Ishita—married to Harish Sharma and embroiled in her own case against him—was later implicated via Sharma's statement, accused of couriering abortion pills to 'AG' in Kota.
Petitioners' Plea: No Room for Double Dipping
Yashraj's counsel, and , argued the second FIR violated precedents like T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001), barring successive FIRs for the same incident. They highlighted 'AG's post-complaint hotel stay and withdrawal as proof of consent and bad faith.
For Ishita, they called the pills allegation a "" from her estranged husband, absent from original filings. No evidence linked her to —causing miscarriage voluntarily or without consent—as sending pills alone doesn't prove intent or force.
Prosecution Pushes Back: Holds
The Public Prosecutor and complainant counsel countered that investigation revealed a under all sections, urging no high court interference.
Court's Razor-Sharp Reasoning: Precedents Seal the Deal
Justice Dhand dissected the duplicity: allegations in both filings were "verbatim same and identical," with no comma's difference. Citing T.T. Antony , he reaffirmed no second FIR for the same cognizable offence, protecting rights against investigative abuse. Echoing Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI (2013) and Anju Chaudhary v. State of UP (2013), the court stressed one FIR suffices, with further probes under if needed—no fresh starts.
On Ishita, the court clarified
require voluntary causation of miscarriage, not in good faith to save life, and without consent for 313.
"Sending abortion pills to anyone does not constitute any offence unless such pills are forcefully given to the victim with the intent to miscarry her pregnancy."
No such evidence existed; the claim was a retaliatory insertion.
As noted in legal reports, this aligns with the Rajasthan High Court's observation that
"merely sending abortion pills... did not fulfil the basic ingredients of the offence unless... forcefully given."
Key Observations from the Bench
"It is utterly shocking that the prosecutrix ‘AG’, after filing of the aforesaid complaint, again stayed with the petitioner-Yashraj Bhardwaj in Hotel Moti Mahal at Pushkar for two days i.e. on ..."
"Once the criminal complaint with regard to the same incident and the same offence is not pressed and withdrawn by the victim, then the successive impugned FIR... is legally not sustainable..."
"...registration of a second F.I.R. in respect of same offence is not only impermissible but it is also violative of of the Constitution of India."( T.T. Antony quote)
"The only allegation levelled against her is that she sent abortion pills to the victim through courier... basic ingredients of the offence under Section 312 and 313 IPC are missing..."
FIR Annihilated: A Clean Slate
The court declared proceedings a
"
,"
quashing FIR 365/2020 entirely against both petitioners. This clears Yashraj of redundant rape charges and exonerates Ishita from unproven miscarriage claims.
The ruling reinforces safeguards against serial FIRs in relationship-gone-wrong cases, potentially deterring vengeful filings while prioritizing evidence in sensitive IPC provisions. Victims must weigh consent histories; accused gain ammo against retaliatory add-ons.
