[2026:RJ-JP:28831] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1855/2023 CNR: RJHC020247782023 | URN: CRLMP / 3356U / 2023 Mohan Singh S/o Shri Ramhans, R/o Randheergarh, Bhusawar, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ----Accused-Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through P.P. ----Respondent 2. Victim ----Complainant-Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.P.S. Tomar For Respondent(s) : Mr.Mahendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr.Vishram Prajapati JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/07/2026 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, [2026:RJ-JP:28831] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1855/2023] on priority and decide the same expeditiously without deferring the hearings to subsequent dates. 3. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made for quashing the impugned F.I.R. No.526/2021, registered at the Police Station Bhusawar, District Bharatpur for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 376, 511, 379, 354A, 354B & 34 IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the allegations levelled in the impugned F.I.R., the alleged offence has occurred on 18.10.2021 at about 6:00 AM in the morning. Counsel submits that at the relevant time, the petitioner was a Final Year student of M.A. Course and his examination was scheduled for 18.10.2021, commencing from 01:00 PM at Bayana. Counsel submits that the petitioner was working at Jaipur and after discharging his duty on 18.10.2021, he left for the examination centre at Bayana, hence, his presence at the place of the alleged offence is improbable. 5. Counsel submits that without making any investigation with regard to the presence of the petitioner at the place of occurrence, he has been charge-sheeted before the concerned Court, simply on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Counsel submits that on account of civil dispute between the parties, the petitioner has been falsely booked in the instant case, hence, a prayer has been made for quashing the proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. 6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Ahmad Ali Quraishi & Anr. [2026:RJ-JP:28831] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1855/2023] Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2020) 13 SCC 435 & Harjinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1029. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of complainant opposed the prayer. 7. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 8. The case set out in the impugned F.I.R. by the prosecutrix is that on 18.10.2021, at around 6:00 AM in the morning, the petitioner outraged her modesty and for the aforesaid occurrence, the impugned F.I.R. has been registered by the prosecutrix against the petitioner. 9. Whether the petitioner was present on the place of alleged occurrence at the relevant point of time or not? Whether the petitioner was discharging his duties at Jaipur at his workplace or not? These question are based on plea of alibi of the petitioner and the same cannot be appreciated by this Court at this initial stage, while exercising its inherent powers contained under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10. The plea of alibi of the petitioner with regard to his absence at the place of occurrence at the relevant point of time, would be appreciated by the Trial Court at the appropriate stage of the trial. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even at the stage of summoning of the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the plea of alibi of the accused is not required to be seen as the plea of alibi is the defence of the accused, which would be appreciated by the Trial Judge at the appropriate stage of the trial. [2026:RJ-JP:28831] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-1855/2023] 11. It has been apprised at Bar that charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner before the concerned Court on 07.03.2022 and thereafter, charges have been framed, however, the prosecutrix is not turning up for recording of her statements. 12. In view of the matter, it is expected from the Trial Judge to make all possible endeavours to procure the presence of the prosecutrix for expeditious disposal of the matter pending before it. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma/6