[2025:RJ-JP:19702] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1789/2025 Victim, R/o ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. S.h.o. Police Station Neem Ka Thana Sadar, District Neem Ka Thana ( Now District Sikar ) ( Rajasthan). 3. Superintendent Of Police, Neem Ka Thana Sadar, District Neem Ka Thana ( Now Sikar) ( Rajasthan). ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1284/2025 1. Vikram Singh @ Sher Singh S/o Rohtan Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Dhani Agari, Ganeshwar, Neemkathana, District Sikar. 2. Kapil Singh @ Kripal Singh S/o Karan Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Plot No. 67, Jai Karnilok , Kanakpura Phatak, Gokulpura, Jhotwara, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Victim, R/o ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madhav Mitra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma in SBCRLMP No. 1284/2025 Mr. K. N. Sharma in SBCRLMP No. 1789/2025 Mr. Nemsingh Gurjar Mr. Pankaj Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. M. S. Shekhawat, PP Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. K. N. Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 09/05/2025 1. SBCRLMP No. 1789/2025 is filed for transfer of investigation of FIR No. 491/2024 dated 10.11.2024 registered at Police Station Neem Ka Thana, Sadar for offences under Sections [2025:RJ-JP:19702] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1789/2025] 332(b), 70(1) annd 64(2)(m) of BNS and SBCRLMP No. 1284/2025 is filed for quashing of the FIR No. 491/2024. 2. Considering the interwoven factual narrative and with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties the present petitions are adjudicated by this common judgment. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that accused and victim are close relatives. It is submitted that on account of certain erstwhile monetary transactions and with ulterior motive, the impugned FIR was made to be registered with false and fabricated allegations, on the basis of a concocted story. Further, it is contended that in the FIR it is alleged that the accused-petitioner had entered into the premise wherein the complainant-victim was residing and had sexually assaulted her. 4. It is also submitted that in any matter wherein, the criminal antecedents are manifestly absent and proceedings are maliciously instituted with ulterior motive for reckoning vengeance on the accused and if not supported by the material evidences, the FIR is ought to be should be quashed. 5. Likewise in the case in hand, the medical report on its face is absolutely clear as it is stated that no traces of force is present. It is also submitted that victim is a lady in her middle age, having a daughter aged about 12 years and allegations are leveled qua the group of persons and no forceful injury is sustained in medical report. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor along with learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the contentions of the accused-petitioners and have unanimously submitted that the FIR [2025:RJ-JP:19702] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1789/2025] was lodged within the requisite time and the entire factual narration as made in the FIR is maintained by the complainant- victim. It is further submitted that the said act constitutes to rape rather a gang rape as, the complainant has categorically stated her resistance and herself being under pressure. 7. Further, it is submitted that final opinion of the medical jurist categorically reflects that there are physical injuries on both the genitals and it cannot be ruled out that sexual violence has taken place. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that a medical report cannot be interpreted by this Court and the instant disputed questions of fact and facts in issue are to be dealt by the learned Trial Court. 8. Having heard the rival arguments made by the counsel representing various parties and upon a perusal of the material available on record, taking note of the opinion made by the medical jurist, this Court is of the view that the offence in question pertain to a heinous offence, qua which disputed questions of facts have arisen; that the FIR was made to be registered within due time, sans any delay, therefore, no interference is called for. Howsoever, it is clarified that no prejudice will be caused to either of the sides on account of the said dismissal of the petitions. 9. Accordingly, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1284/2025 is dismissed and S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1789/2025 is disposed of. Police authorities may proceed further with investigation as deemed essential. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. 10. Considering the contradictory stance in medical report whereby it prima facie appears that the medical jurist concerned [2025:RJ-JP:19702] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-1789/2025] has made mere pictorial information, and has abstained from rendering any substantial opinion rather has noted a contradictory view, this Court directs the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Rajasthan to seek appropriate explanation from the undersignee of the report in question as the said explanation creates dubiousness in efficacious adjudication of matters. (SAMEER JAIN),J Pooja /134-135