HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 798/2021 Amit Kumar S/o Lalchand, aged about 33 Years, R/o Gadhwalon Ki Dhani, Chhawasari, Juhunjhunu, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Its P.P. 2. Victim-, R/o- ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Adeet Srivastava and Mr. Garvit Saraswat for Mr. Rajesh Goswami For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore-PP Mr. Gurupendra Singh- C.I., P.S. Muhana JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/04/2026 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. Directions have been issued to this Court and other High Courts to take up such like matters which are pending since long, (2 of 4) [CRLMP-798/2021] 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. 879/2020, registered with the Police Station Muhana, District Jaipur City (South) for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 498A, 494, 384, 376 and 420 IPC. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage of the petitioner was never solemnized with the prosecutrix rather they were living in a live-in-relationship and the prosecutirx is a major lady. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, neither the offence under Section 376 IPC is made out nor other offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 494 IPC are made out. Counsel submits that since the complainant/respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, hence under these circumstances, the other offences are also not made out. Counsel further submits that the alleged incident occurred in the year 2018 and the impugned FIR has been lodged after a delay of almost two years and no explanation has been given for such inordinate delay. 5. In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Charul Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2026 SC Online SC 476. In view of the submissions made herein above, the entire proceedings arising out of impugned FIR be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix in Arya Smaj (3 of 4) [CRLMP-798/2021] Mandir, at Delhi. Considering this material aspect of the matter, the offence under Section 376 IPC has been deleted. Since the petitioner has solemnized second marriage during subsistence of the first marriage, the offence under Section 494 IPC has been found to be prima facie proved. He further submits that on account of harassment and withheld stridhan of the prosecutrix, the offence under Sections 498A and 406 IPC have been found to be prima facie established, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. 7. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 8. Perusal of the record indicates that as per the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR, the petitioner has committed rape with the prosecutrix as he kept her like his wife and he did not solemnize marriage with the petitioner and thereafter, the marriage was solemnized at Delhi and the petitioner harassed and abused her and solemnized second marriage with one Anita D/o Vijay Sangwan on 30.11.2020. 9. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the impugned FIR has been registered, which has been thoroughly investigated by the Investigating Agency and it was found by the Investigating Officer that the prosecutrix is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, hence under these circumstances, the offence under Section 376 IPC was deleted but looking to the fact that the allegations of harassment and stridhan have been made against the petitioner and the allegations have also been levelled stating that he has solemnized second marriage with one Anita D/o Vijay (4 of 4) [CRLMP-798/2021] Sangwan, hence the offence under Section 494 IPC has been found to be proved. 10. Whether the prosecutrix is a legally wedded wife of the petitioner or not. This question has been seriously disputed by the petitioner. This Court cannot adjudicate this material aspect of the matter for proving or disproving the aforesaid fact. Such essential evidence is required to be recorded before the Competent Court of law. 11. So far as the other issues with regard to the correctness of the allegations regarding harassment and withholding the dowry articles/ stridhan and solemnization of second marriage by the petitioner with some other lady are concerned, these are the disputed facts which cannot be adjudged/examined/adjudicated by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction contained under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 12. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all these objections before the Trial Court at the appropriate stage of the trial. 13. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/2