[2025:RJ-JP:47827] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7971/2019 Sagarmal Prajapat S/o Shri Choturam Prajapat, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Gunsi Luhara, Niwai Tonk, Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. XXXXXXXXXXX R/o 3. XXXXXXXXXXX R/o ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shubham Khunteta, Adv. for Mr. Deepak Chauhan, Adv. For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP Mr. Amitabh Jatav HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 25/11/2025 1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC by the petitioner for quashing of First Information Report (FIR) No.333/2019, registered at Police Station Kotwali Sikar, District Sikar, for offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR was registered on the basis of a written report submitted by the respondent No.2 on 18.06.2019. Stating in this report, it was alleged that his minor daughter ‘P’, aged about 17 years, is a student of B.A. 1st year who is missing since 18.06.2019, at 10:00AM in the morning. It was further alleged that a boy named ‘S’ (petitioner herein), who lived in the house of the complainant as a tenant, had taken the complainant's minor daughter with him. The complainant made efforts to search the petitioner and his missing daughter, but he could not find them anywhere. On [2025:RJ-JP:47827] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-7971/2019] the basis of the said written report, Police registered the FIR against the petitioner. Hence, this criminal misc. petition for quashing of the impugned FIR. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present FIR has been lodged with malafide intentions because the petitioner and the daughter of respondent No.2 were in a consensual relationship, and she went with the petitioner on her own volition. Counsel asserts that respondent No.2, being unhappy with the said relationship, lodged the present FIR based on false averments. Counsel further submits that vide order dated 17.02.2020, further proceedings in the impugned FIR were stayed by this Court after the respondent No.3 (the alleged victim in this case) appeared before the Court and submitted that she had voluntarily gone with the petitioner. Counsel submits that during the pendency of this petition, respondent No.3 returned back to her parental home, but after some time, she was maltreated in her parental home and respondent No.2 intended to marry her against her wish. Counsel contends that in these circumstances, respondent No.3 again left her parental home and presently, she is residing with the petitioner as his wife and they are leading a peaceful and happy married life. Counsel further states that when the respondent No.3 left her parental home on the subsequent occasion, another FIR No.671/2019, was lodged by respondent No.2 against the petitioner in the same Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 457, 380, 363, 366 & 120B of the IPC. In the said FIR, on completion of investigation, Police filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC. Counsel submits that upon [2025:RJ-JP:47827] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-7971/2019] completion of trial, the petitioner was acquitted in that matter by the learned Additional Session Judge No.1, Sikar vide judgment dated 22.08.2023 passed in Sessions Case No.286/2021, after considering the testimony of respondent No.3 wherein she clearly stated that she was not abducted by the petitioner and she voluntarily left the parental home on her own volition as her parents wanted to marry her against her wish and in these circumstances, she had no other option but to leave the parental home. She further testified that her father had lodged a false case against the petitioner. 4. Counsel thus, prays that in light of the guidelines issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (1992 AIR 604), the impugned FIR may be quashed. 5. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2 (the complainant) to oppose this misc. petition, despite service of notices upon him. 6. Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 (the alleged victim) submits that impugned FIR has been lodged with malafide intentions, with the sole motive to harass the petitioner and the respondent No.3. He further submits that the respondent No.3 is presently residing with the petitioner as his wife and has been leading a peaceful and happy married life since 2019. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record, including the judgment passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, No.1, Sikar, regarding the subsequent allegations. [2025:RJ-JP:47827] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-7971/2019] 8. The impugned FIR No.333/2019 was lodged by the respondent No.2 for the offence under Section 363 IPC and it is a matter of record that the alleged victim, respondent No. 3, appeared before this Court earlier and unequivocally stated that she left her parental home voluntarily to reside with the petitioner, as they were in a consensual relationship. Furthermore, the subsequent and more comprehensive FIR No.671/2019, which encompassed similar allegations of abduction, has already culminated in the acquittal of the petitioner by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 22.08.2023. This acquittal was founded substantially upon the testimony of respondent No.3, where she categorically denied any form of abduction, affirming that she left her parents’ home due to coercion regarding her marriage and had since married the petitioner, now residing with him as his wife. 9. The lodging of the initial FIR, followed by the second one, appears to be motivated by the sheer displeasure of respondent No.2 (the father) regarding his daughter’s choice to marry the petitioner. The undisputed facts, fortified by the judicial finding of acquittal in the connected matter, clearly demonstrate that the fundamental allegation of abduction under Section 363 IPC is false. Such actions are a clear manifestation of malafide intent on the part of the complainant to harass the petitioner and interfere with the marital life of the young couple. 10. This situation squarely falls within the guidelines laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of Bhajan Lal & Ors. (supra), specifically guideline No.7, which permits quashing of an FIR where the criminal proceeding is "otherwise an abuse of [2025:RJ-JP:47827] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-7971/2019] the process of the court." The prosecution against the petitioner in FIR No.333/2019 is evidently an abuse of legal process, being entirely based on a factually incorrect premise and motivated by personal vendetta, especially when the same set of facts has resulted in an acquittal in a subsequent, related trial. It is an unfortunate trend that personal and familial disputes, particularly those arising from romantic relationships or marital choices, are increasingly being given the colour of criminal complaints. The judicial system is burdened with cases like these where parents resort to frivolous litigation and criminal mechanisms merely to settle private scores or enforce their wishes against the autonomy of a major individual. Such matters, which stem from emotional and relational conflicts, should ideally be addressed through dialogue or civil remedies, not through the initiation of criminal proceedings intended primarily to harass and coerce. 11. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court deems it a fit case for exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing the impugned FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising out of it as continuance of proceedings of the impugned FIR would amount to abuse of process of law. 12. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No.333/2019, registered at Police Station Kotwali Sikar, District Sikar, and all other subsequent proceedings arising out of it, are hereby quashed. 13. The stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J Manoj Solanki/-41