[2026:RJ-JP:13717] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6019/2020 1. Anil Singh S/o Bhanwarsingh, R/o Chotikotdi Dantil P.S. Pragpura Tehsil Kotputli Distarict Jaipur 2. Narendra Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, R/o Chotikotdi Dantil P.S. Pragpura Tehsil Kotputli Distarict Jaipur 3. Sartaz W/o Bhanwar Singh, R/o Chotikotdi Dantil P.S. Pragpura Tehsil Kotputli Distarict Jaipur 4. Preeti W/o Narendra Singh, R/o Chotikotdi Dantil P.S. Pragpura Tehsil Kotputli Distarict Jaipur 5. Sunil S/o Bhanwarsifngh, R/o Chotikotdi Dantil P.S. Pragpura Tehsil Kotputli Distarict Jaipur ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Victim A W/o Manish Singh, R/o Chotikotdi Dantil P.s. Pragpura Tehsil Kotputli Distarict Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Brahmi Jain with Ms. Reena Goyal for Mr. Lokesh Kumar Verma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, Dy. GA JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 02/04/2026 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 [2026:RJ-JP:13717] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-6019/2020] 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, on priority and decide the same expeditiously without deferring the hearings to subsequent dates. 3. By way of filing the instant petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned FIR No. 602/2020, registered with Police Station Pragpura, District Jaipur Rural for the offences punishable under Section 376, 365, 383 & 120B IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent-prosecutrix victim “A” is a major lady and she is legally wedded with Manish Singh but since she was not happy with the aforesaid relationship, she left her matrimonial home. Thereafter, Manish Singh’s father lodged a missing persons report for the respondent-prosecutrix before the Court of Assistant Collector & Sub-Divisional Magistrate Kotputli, Jaipur and she was found and produced before the Court of Assistant Collector & Sub- Divisional Magistrate Kotputli, Jaipur where she expressed her desire not to go with her husband Manish Singh and his family members. Hence, under these circumstances she was directed by the Assistant Collector & Sub-Divisional Magistrate Kotputli, Jaipur to be sent to Nari Niketan. 5. Counsel further submits that after going to Nari Niketan, the respondent-prosecutrix expressed her desire to withdraw herself from Nari Niketan and go to the place of her desire. The Assistant [2026:RJ-JP:13717] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-6019/2020] Collector & Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kotputli, Jaipur vide order dated 18.09.2020 accepted the aforesaid request of the respondent-prosecutrix and directed her to be sent to the place of her choice with police protection. Thereafter, she entered into a live-in-relationship with the petitioner No.1 on 24.11.2020 and started residing with him. 6. Counsel further submits that sometime thereafter, she filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner No. 1 and all his family members with the false allegation of rape against the petitioner No.1 and other vague allegations against the other petitioners, i.e., the family members of petitioner no.1. 7. Learned counsel submits that the instant case is a case of consent. The prosecutrix has resided with the petitioner at her own will and any acts between the petitioner no.1 & respondent- prosecutrix from the said relationship has been done with the consent of the respondent-prosecutrix. Hence, under these circumstances, no offence is made out and the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 8. Upon being posed with a query of this Court with regard to the status of investigation, the learned counsel for the petitioner apprised this Court that after investigation, police has submitted charge-sheet only against the petitioner No.1 and a Final Report (Negative) has been submitted in favour of the other petitioners. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer. 10. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 11. Perusal of the documents annexed with the petition indicates that an FIR has been registered against the petitioner No.1 on the [2026:RJ-JP:13717] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-6019/2020] basis of a complaint submitted by the respondent-complainant which reveals commission of a cognizable offence and the correctness of such allegations cannot be examined by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers contained under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 12. It is also settled proposition of law that the defense of the accused cannot be appreciated or adjudged by this Court at this initial stage. 13. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant petition granting liberty to the petitioner to take all available grounds and defence which have been taken before this Court at the appropriate stage of the trial. 14. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Shivam-Puneet/5