HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 300/2023 Dinesh S/o Mukutbihari, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Rajnagar, Tehsil Ladpura, Police Station Borkheda, Kota City. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Victim ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Girraj P Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr.Jitendra Rathore, PP with Mr.Gaurav Gupta, Asst. GA. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 22/05/2026 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, on priority and decide the same expeditiously without deferring the hearings to subsequent dates. (2 of 3) [CRLMP-300/2023] 3. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made to quash the impugned F.I.R. No.438/2022, registered at Police Station Borkheda, District Kota City for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely booked in the instant case for no fault of his own. In fact, the prosecutrix trapped the petitioner in her love with a mala fide intention and pressurized him to solemnize marriage with her and she also started demanding money from the petitioner. When the petitioner refused to perform marriage with her, she started blackmailing the petitioner and with an ulterior motive to defame the petitioner, the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged based on false, vague and vexatious allegations. Hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer and submits that after investigation in the instant matter, a prima facie case is found to be proved against the petitioner under Section 376 (2)(n) IPC and Section 5l/6 of POCSO Act and charge-sheet has already been submitted against him before the Court of Special Judge POCSO Act No.2, Kota on 29.04.2025 and the trial is ongoing. Hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 7. Perusal of the allegations levelled in the impugned F.I.R. reveals commission of cognizable offence. The correctness of the allegations cannot be examined, adjudged and adjudicated by this Court while exercising its inherent powers contained under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court cannot conduct roving and fishing enquiry (3 of 3) [CRLMP-300/2023] to find out the truth behind the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Certainly, this task has been assigned to the Investigating Officer, who has thoroughly investigated the matter and already submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner before the concerned Court. 8. 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 take all available defence at the appropriate stage of the trial, before the Trial Court. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma/6