[2026:RJ-JP:9039] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 305/2026 Avinash Pareta S/o Ashok Pareta, Aged About 28 Years, R/o House No. 577, Road Ino.1, Dadwada Rangpur, Police Station Bheemganj Mandi, Kota Presently House No. 43, Roop Laxmi Vatika, Kallawala, Police Station Sanganer Sadar, Jaipur (Confined in Central Jail, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Victim ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Charan Gautam, Adv. Ms. Nilanjna Gautam, Adv. Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Rohit Gautam, Adv. Mr. Abhay, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP For Complainant(s) : None Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI Order 26/02/2026 vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls /kkjk 14&,¼2½ vuqlwfpr tkfr o vuqlwfpr tutkfr ¼vR;kpkj fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e ds varxZr ;g tekur vihy fopkj.k U;k;ky;] fof'k"V U;k;k/kh'k] vuqlwfpr tkfr vkSj tutkfr ¼vR;kpkj fuokj.k½ izdj.k] t;iqj egkuxj&izFke }kjk tekur izkFkZuk i= la[;k 09@2026 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 09-01-2026 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh xbZ gS] ftlds rgr iqfyl Fkkuk lkaxkusj lnj] t;iqj 'kgj ¼nf{k.k½ esa [2026:RJ-JP:9039] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-305/2026] ntZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 955@2025 varxZr /kkjk 69] 78¼2½] 351¼2½ Hkkjrh; U;k; lafgrk o /kkjk 66D, 66E lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh ¼la'kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e esa vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dk tekur vkosnu varxZr /kkjk 483 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk [kkfjt fd;k x;kA vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dk cgl ds nkSjku rdZ jgk gS fd vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr funksZ"k gS] mls izdj.k esa feF;k :i ls fyIr fd;k x;k gSA ihfM+rk 23 o"khZ; gS vkSj iwoZ ls fookfgr gSA vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh ÝsaM fjDosLV ij mlus vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ls nksLrh dh vkSj lgefr ls 'kkjhfjd laca/k cuk;sA ihfM+rk us flrEcj] 2025 o vDVwcj] 2025 esa 'kkjhfjd laca/k cukuk dgk gS] ;fn mldh bPNk ds fo#) 'kkjhfjd laca/k cuk;s tkrs ;k mls /kks[ks esa j[kdj 'kkjhfjd laca/k cuk;s tkrs] rks og ?kVuk dh fjiksVZ rqjar ntZ djokrhA ihfM+rk us tks QksVks viyksM+ fd;s gSa] os Lo;a ds o HkkbZ dh vkbZ-Mh- ls fd;s gSaA vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) vkjksi i= izLrqr gks pqdk gS] izdj.k ds fopkj.k esa le; yxsxkA vr% vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks tekur dk ykHk fn;k tkosA uksfVl rkehy ds ckotwn ifjoknh@ihfM+rk dh vksj ls dksbZ mifLFkr ugha gSA fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd dk cgl ds nkSjku rdZ jgk gS fd vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ij vkjksfir vijk/k dh xaHkhjrk dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh tekur vihy [kkfjt dh tkosA eSaus nksuksa i{kksa dh vksj ls izLrqr rdksaZ ij euu fd;k rFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA [2026:RJ-JP:9039] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-305/2026] orZeku izdj.k esa vuqla/kku ls ;g rF; lkeus vk;k gS fd ihfM+rk 23 o"khZ; gS vkSj iwoZ ls fookfgr gS rFkk twu] 2025 ls vius ifr ls vyx fuokl dj jgh gS vkSj vLirky esa uflZax gSYij LVkQ ds :i esa ukSdjh dj jgh gSA vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh ÝsaM fjDosLV ij ihfM+rk us mlls nksLrh djds mlds lkFk flrEcj] 2025 esa izrki uxj esa ,d gksVy esa o fnukad 13-10-2025 dks izrki uxj esa ,d dkWyksuh ds dejs esa ihfM+rk ds lkFk 'kkjhfjd laca/k cuk;s tkuk crk;k gSA mDr 'kkjhfjd laca/k cukus ds laca/k esa ihfM+rk us dksbZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ ugh djk;h gSA ihfM+rk ds /kkjk 183 ch-,u-,l-,l- ds c;ku esa mlus vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr }kjk 'kknh ls bUdkj fd;s tkus ij fjiksVZ ntZ djokuk crk;k gSA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us vius fofu'p; Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608 esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%& "18. To summarise the legal position that emerges from the above cases, the “consent” of a woman with respect to Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. To establish whether the “consent” was vitiated by a “misconception of fact” arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established. The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act." "21. The allegations in the FIR do not on their face indicate that the promise by the appellant was false, or that the complainant engaged in sexual relations on the basis of this promise. There is no allegation in the FIR that when the appellant promised to marry the complainant, it was done in bad [2026:RJ-JP:9039] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-305/2026] faith or with the intention to deceive her. The appellant's failure in 2016 to fulfil his promise made in 2008 cannot be construed to mean the promise itself was false. The allegations in the FIR indicate that the complainant was aware that there existed obstacles to marrying the appellant since 2008, and that she and the appellant continued to engage in sexual relations long after their getting married had become a disputed matter. Even thereafter, the complainant travelled to visit and reside with the appellant at his postings and allowed him to spend his weekends at her residence. The allegations in the FIR belie the case that she was deceived by the appellant's promise of marriage. Therefore, even if the facts set out in the complainant's statements are accepted in totality, no offence under Section 375 IPC has occurred." vr% izdj.k ds rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa] izLrqr rdksaZ rFkk vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh vfHkj{kk vof/k dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, izdj.k ds xq.k&nks"kksa ij fVIi.kh fd;s fcuk vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks tekur dk ykHk fn;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA ifj.kker% vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr vfouk'k ikjsrk iq= v'kksd ikjsrk dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g tekur vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gS vkSj fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 09-01-2026 vikLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd ;fn vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr bl ekeys esa fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds larks"kizn] muds U;k;ky; ;k varfjrh U;k;ky; esa fu;r frfFk;ksa ij ,oa tc Hkh mls cqyk;k tk,] mifLFkfr gsrq ,d yk[k :i;s dk cU/k&i= ,oa ipkl&ipkl gtkj :i;s dh nks lqn`< izfrHkwfr;ka izLrqr dj izekf.kr djkos rFkk mldh vU; fdlh izdj.k esa vko';drk uk gks] rks gLrxr izdj.k esa mls tekur ij fjgk dj fn;k tk,A (CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J MANISH SAINI /110