[2025:RJ-JP:17216] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 285/2006 1. Smt. Manju W/o Aalam, R/o Harrajpura, PS Masooda, District Ajmer. 2. Smt. Soorna W/o Lal Mohammad, R/o Harajpura, PS Masooda, District Ajmer ----Complainants-Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan Through P.P. & 2. Chhagan Lal S/o Hajari Lal, 3. Tevan S/o Deena Both R/o Harrajpura, PS Masooda, District Ajmer ----Accused-Non Petitioners For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hakam Ali for Mr. Nasir Ali Naqvi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, P.P. with Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, P.P. Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta with Ms. Shreya Khandal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 23/04/2025 Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that one FIR was registered on 02.01.2005 and the date of incidence is stated as 24.10.2004. It is further submitted that the Court vide order dated 23.01.2006 has given a benefit of doubt to the petitioner on account of the fact the that no reasonable explanation is tendered by the respondents for lodging an FIR at a belated stage. Further, it is submitted that (explanation given qua delay) the husband of the victim was rendering services/working in [2025:RJ-JP:17216] (2 of 2) [CRLR-285/2006] foreign country and on his return to the country, the said FIR was lodged. It is further submitted that on account of threat qua life, the said FIR was not registered by the victim(s) in due time. Further, it is submitted that in the instant matter heinous offence is committed by the accused, more so when there are injuries inflicted upon the victims by the husband of the victim. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Having heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has noted that the incident has occurred on 24.10.2004 and FIR was lodged on 04.01.2005 i.e. after a delay of approximately two months; that learned Trial Court has specifically observed that no reasonable explanation is tendered for lodging an FIR with a delay; that one of the ingredient for lodging an FIR with a delay i.e. motive (dispute qua money inter-se the parties and vindictive attitude of the petitioners) was noted by the learned Trial Court; that statements tendered before the learned trial Court under Section 164 of Cr.P.C are contradictory and does not support the prosecution story and allegations in totality; that there are material contradictions in the statements. In light of the above observations, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 23.01.2006 Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J GAURAV/2