[2026:RJ-JP:1471] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 436/2017 1. Dharamveer Singh S/o Shri Ramjilal, R/o Village Siholi, Post Jarga, P.s. Baseri, Distt. Dholpur. 2. Rajveer Singh S/o Shri Munshi Lal, R/o Village Siholi, Post Jarga, P.s. Baseri, Distt. Dholpur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through P.p. 2. Mukesh S/o Shri Hubba R/o Village Siholi, Post Jarga, P.s. Baseri, Distt. Dholpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jeetendra Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP with Mr. Anirudh Singh Mr. Satyapal Poshwal Ms. Seema Jharwal Ms. Bhanweri Kumari HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 13/01/2026 1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside of FIR No. 337/2016 registered with police station Baseri, District Dholpur for the offences under Sections 376 and 379 of IPC and Sections 3(1) (X) and 3(1)(XII) of the SC/ST Act. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that after registration of this FIR, another FIR No. 340/2016 was lodged by the husband of the prosecutrix, Mukesh, against the petitioners in police station Baseri, District Dholpur, in which it was alleged that the petitioners abused the complainant and her wife [2026:RJ-JP:1471] (2 of 4) [CRLW-436/2017] and also opened fire. The said FIR was instituted after the lodging of the present FIR, and the husband of the prosecutrix, Mukesh, entered into a compromise with the petitioners. Based on the compromise reached between the parties, the police prepared a final negative report and submitted it to the concerned trial court. The concerned trial court vide order dated 03.05.2017, accepted the final negative report. It is also argued that in the said report, it is specifically alleged that Rs. 1,50,000/- and a motor-bike were handed over to petitioner Dharamveer with a condition that petitioner Dharamveer shall return the motor-bike and the amount to the prosecutrix. In the said FIR, the police have recorded that the petitioner has returned the amount, along with the motorcycle, to the husband of the prosecutrix, Mukesh. The husband of the prosecutrix lodged this FIR against the petitioner only to recover the amount and the motorcycle. It is also contended that during the pendency of the investigation, the prosecutrix X died. The present FIR against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of the process of law to recover the amount given to the petitioner, Dharamveer. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the writ petition and contended that the prosecutrix, in her statement rendered under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., has stated explicitly that the petitioner, Dharamveer, committed rape with her. It is also contended that, after investigation, the commission of an offence by the petitioners was found; the petitioners' petition may therefore be dismissed. [2026:RJ-JP:1471] (3 of 4) [CRLW-436/2017] 4. Learned counsel for the complainant concedes that during the pendency of the petition, the prosecutrix 'X' has died. It is also not controverted that after the recording of the first FIR, the husband of the prosecutrix lodged a subsequent FIR, and in the same case, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement, based on which a final negative report was submitted before the trial court. 5. Heard and perused the material available on the record. 6. The FIR in this case was lodged against the petitioner with a delay of six days. The subsequent FIR was lodged on 27.09.2016 and in the said FIR parties have arrived at amicable settlement and the fact is also mentioned that Rs. 1,50,000/- and motorcycle which was kept with petitioner Dharamveer has been returned to the respondent No. 02. In the alleged FIR this fact has been mentioned by the prosecutrix that petitioners have illegally kept the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- and motor-bike and did not return it. It is also an admitted fact that the prosecutrix 'X' has died during the investigation. Even if it is presumed that the prosecutrix was subjected to rape, the prosecution would not be able to prove it, as she has died. Further, it cannot be ruled out that the instant FIR was lodged with the intention of recovering the amount lying with the petitioner No.1. The continuance of the investigation/trial against the petitioner shall be of no avail, and the ultimate result will be acquittal, as the prosecutrix has died. 7. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts of the present case and looking to the fact that in the subsequent FIR, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the prosecutrix has [2026:RJ-JP:1471] (4 of 4) [CRLW-436/2017] died, this court deems it proper to quash and set aside the impugned FIR and all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR against the petitioners. 8. All pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J ashu /21