[2026:RJ-JP:13623] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3275/2016 Bhanwar Singh Dhinva S/o Sh. Ram Karan, aged about 51 years, R/o Village Todpura, Police Station Uaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Accused/Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor 2. Tulsi Devi W/o Shri Ram Pratat, aged about 55 years, R/o Village Jakhal Tehsil Nawalgarh, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishant Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 01/04/2026 1. By way of filing the instant criminal miscellaneous petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 03.08.2015 passed by the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Section 376 IPC. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the revision petition was submitted by the petitioner in the Court of the Sessions Judge, District Jhunjhunu, however, the same was rejected vide order dated 01.07.2016. 3. Aggrieved by both the impugned orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that an FIR no.359/2013 was registered against the son of the prosecutrix under Section [2026:RJ-JP:13623] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-3275/2016] 366/511, 376 & 452 IPC, wherein, the allegations were levelled against him that he committed rape upon a girl. The petitioner being the Sarpanch of the village, helped the said girl in lodging the aforesaid FIR and in counter-blast to the aforesaid, instant FIR has been registered by the prosecutrix against the petitioner with false and vague allegations. 4. Counsel further submits that after thorough investigation in the instant matter, the Investigating Agency prima facie did not find the offence to be proved against the petitioner and found that a false FIR was registered by the prosecutrix against the petitioner, hence, Final Report (Negative) was submitted in favour of the petitioner. Counsel further submits that the Protest Petition submitted against the Final Report was filed by the complainant and thereafter, the Protest Petition was submitted by the complainant was allowed and the Final Report submitted by the Police was rejected and cognizance has been taken by the Trial Court vide impugned order dated 03.08.2015 for the above stated offences. 5. Counsel further submits that after passing the aforesaid impugned order, the complainant has submitted an affidavit in favour of the petitioner stating that she is a distant relative of the petitioner, and is maternal aunt of the petitioner and does not want to prosecute the petitioner and in case the revision petition is allowed against the order of cognizance she has no objection, but this fact has not been appreciated by the revisional court and the revision petition submitted by the petitioner has been rejected vide impugned order dated 01.07.2016. Counsel further submits that in view of the submissions made hereinabove the impugned [2026:RJ-JP:13623] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-3275/2016] order passed by both the Courts below are not sustainable and are liable to be quashed. Lastly, he argued that lodging of such kind of FIRs in such like matters amounts to abuse of the process of law, so interference of this Court is warranted. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer and submitted that as per the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the instant FIR No.363/2013 and the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein the allegations of rape are present, hence, taking a note of the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter, the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance against the petitioner and the revision petition submitted by the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the Revisional Court. Hence, by passing a cogent & reasoned order, interference of this Court is not warranted. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that at the stage of taking cognizance only prima facie case is required to be seen and on the basis of the allegations levelled in the instant FIR and the statements of the prosecutrix which were recorded under Section 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C., cognizance has been rightly taken against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate by passing a cogent order. In case, any compromise has taken place between the parties and an affidavit has been submitted by the prosecutrix in favour of the petitioner, this fact cannot be appreciated by this Court at the initial stage and the same would be taken into account at appropriate stage of the trial. [2026:RJ-JP:13623] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-3275/2016] 7. 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 Shivam-Puneet/41