HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 610/2020 Saddam Mohammed S/o Nijam Mohammed, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Bhram Chowk, Savitri Mark, Badi Basti, Pushkar District Ajmer, Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp. 2. Manjesh Kanwar D/o Sh. Pappu Singh, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Santoshi Mata Ki Dhani, Badi Basti, Pushkar, District Ajmer, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Sethi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary-GA cum AAG Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore-PP Mr. Dushyant Singh Naruka JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 07/04/2026 1. The instant misc. petition is listed before this Court in pursuance 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 revision petitions and petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as a result 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 of 4) [CRLMP-610/2020] 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 misc. petition, a prayer has been made to quash the impugned FIR No. 305/2019, registered with the Police Station Pushkar, District Ajmer for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 366, 384 IPC and Section 67A of the IT Act, 2000. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-complainant/prosecutrix is a major lady and she was in relationship with the petitioner for a considerable amount of time and this fact is clear from the mobile chat between her and the petitioner along with the photographs annexed with the instant petition. Counsel submits that the family members of the prosecutrix were well aware of their relationship and of the fact that the prosecutrix wanted to marry the petitioner. However, her family members were not accepting of their relationship since they were proposing an inter-caste marriage. Hence under these circumstances, the petitioner has not committed any offence whatsoever and he has been falsely implicated in the impugned FIR concocting a false story. He further submits that now the prosecutrix has solemnized marriage with another person and out from the said wedlock, two children have been born. If the proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR are allowed to continue, the same would affect her matrimonial life and future. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the proceedings against the petitioner arising out of the impugned FIR be quashed. (3 of 4) [CRLMP-610/2020] 5. Per contra, learned Pubic Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-complainant oppose the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submit that the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR reveal the commission of a cognizable offence and the documents relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are additional evidence which cannot be appreciated by this Court at this stage while exercising its power contained under Section 482 Cr.PC. 6. In support of their contentions, they have placed reliance upon the judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/S Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors, reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401 and in the case of C.S. Prasad Vs. C. Satyakumar and Ors. reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 50. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 7. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 8. Perusal of the contents of the impugned FIR and the allegations levelled therein reveal the commission of a cognizable offence and such correctness of the allegations cannot be examined by this Court in exercise of its power contained under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court is not supposed to make a roving/fishing inquiry into the correctness of the allegation at this initial stage as this view has already been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of M/S Neeharika Infrastructure (Supra) and C.S. Prasad (Supra). Certainly this task has been assigned to the Investigating Officer. (4 of 4) [CRLMP-610/2020] 9. As per the factual report furnished by the learned Public Prosecutor, after investigation prima facie case has been proved against the petitioner for the offences as stated above. 10 Considering the above, the present petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to take all these grounds which have been taken before this Court and available defence at the appropriate stage of the trial before the Trial Court. 11. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/2