[2026:RJ-JP:15243] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8889/2022 Radhabai D/o Biramlal, Aged About 29 Years, Barbadh Police Station Bakani, Presently At Ramdwara Street, Managalpura, Jhalawar (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor., Rajasthan High Court Premises, Jaipur 302005. 2. Kailash Prajapati S/o Balchand, R/o 54-55, Govindpura Road, Growth Centre, P.S. Jhalrapatan, Jhalawar (Rajasthan). 3. Dy. S.P., Circle Officer Jhalawar, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hans Kumar Sharma with Mr. Avinash Meghwal & Mr. Ramesh Bairwa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rhishiraj Singh, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI Order 10/04/2026 1. Arguments Concluded On: 10/04/2026 2. Judgment Reserved On: 10/04/2026 3. Full Judgment/Operative Part Pronounced: Full Judgment 4. Pronounced On: 20.04.2026 1. The present petition has been instituted by the petitioner/complainant under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 03.06.2022 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST, Jhalawar. [2026:RJ-JP:15243] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-8889/2022] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that, the victim is a 29 year old lady belonging to the Scheduled Caste and she had previously filed a rape case under Section 376 IPC read with section 3 of the SC/ST act of 1989 against the accused- Kailash Prajapati, which is pending before the SC/ST Court in Jhalawar. He contended that the accused was constantly using force to pressurise her to enter into a compromise. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submitted a grievance memo dated 06.05.2019 to the Superintendent of Police Jhalawar to the effect that, On 04.05.2019 at approximately 7:00 PM, when the petitioner was returning to her rented accommodation in Ramdwara Gali, Mangalpura, Jhalawar, she was intercepted by accused-Kailash and his sister Manju Prajapati, and two unidentified men on motorcycles. He further alleged that the accused surrounded her and threatened that if she did not withdraw the rape case, they would kill her or commit a more horrific public rape so she could not show her face to anyone. He contended that they beat her brutally, causing her nose to bleed, and attempted to outrage her modesty by pulling her saree. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submitted that the victim narrowly escaped by hiding in her room and locking it from the inside while the accused banged on the door. The victim attempted to report the matter to the Women’s Police Station on the same night i.e., (04.05.2019), but alleges that no immediate action was taken. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant further submits that, later, women Police Station registered a case no. 65/2019 [2026:RJ-JP:15243] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-8889/2022] and began an investigation, resulting in Closure Report No. 25/2019 being a "sheer bundle of false facts". He further contended that the Police failed to medically examine her blood- stained clothes, seize the mobile phones of the accused to investigate alleged nude videos used for blackmail, and examine the independent witnesses, who have witnessed the incident from their roof, one of them is Narendra Mali. Counsel for the petitioner/complainant highlights that the tower locations of both the parties were within a range of 1 km radius of the incident site, yet this was ignored by the trial Court and Court believed on the accused's alibi. He also contended that the trial Court had failed to apply its own judicial mind and instead performed a "cut and paste" of the Police's Closure Report. 5. Therefore, it is prayed from this hon'ble Court to invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 03.06.2022 and reject the Closure Report to ensure the ends of justice are fulfilled. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that order passed by learned trial Court as well as the closure report filed are justified and in accordance with law, therefore interference of this Court is not warranted and present petition is liable to be rejected. 7. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and have pursued the material available on record. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor, this Court finds that there is a fundamental shift in the petitioner's [2026:RJ-JP:15243] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-8889/2022] allegations. While the initial complaint suggested a grave attempt to commit rape to force a compromise, her subsequent statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. described a much less severe physical scuffle. Such material improvements and variations cast a serious doubt on the authenticity and reliability of the entire incident. 9. The record reveals a complex history between the parties, including a marriage agreement and an affidavit suggesting that they lived as husband and wife. The investigation indicates that the petitioner/complainant has demanded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to settle previous disputes, and upon the accused's inability to pay, this fresh litigation was filed. 10. Furthermore, this Court finds the petitioner’s version of the incident to be inherently improbable and contrary to ordinary human conduct. The said incident is alleged to have occurred at 7:00 PM on a public way in a populated residential area (Mangalpura). It is difficult to believe that at such a peak hour in a public space, an attempt to disrobe the petitioner and commit sexual assault could take place without a single independent witness coming forward to intervene or testify. Additionally, the petitioner has admitted in her own statement that the accused- Kailash, was accompanied by his sister-Manju Prajapati and it seems improbable that an individual would attempt to commit such a heinous act in the active presence and company of his own sister. 11. As far as the petitioner’s contention that in cases involving sexual assault, the law does not strictly require the corroboration of independent witnesses, as the Court is competent to act upon [2026:RJ-JP:15243] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-8889/2022] the sole testimony of the victim, is concerned, it is also a settled legal principle that such testimony must be consistent and free from material contradictions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar vs The State of Bihar 2020 Supreme (SC) 154, in para 6 of the judgment held as under: “6. Having gone through and considered the deposition of the prosecutrix, we find that there are material contradictions. Not only are there material contradictions, but even the manner in which the alleged incident has taken place as per the version of the prosecutrix is not believable. When we tested the version of PW5 -prosecutrix, it is unfortunate that the said witness has failed to pass any of the tests of “sterling witness”. There is a variation in her version about giving the complaint. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the High Court are hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted from all the charges.” State of Haryana & ors Vs Bhajan Lal 1990 Supreme (SC) 740 (para 108.5 and 109) “108 ………… 5. Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 109. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent [2026:RJ-JP:15243] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-8889/2022] powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 12. This Court places significant reliance on the technical investigation. The mobile tower location data and medical prescriptions from SRG Hospital, Jhalawar, corroboratively prove that the accused-Kailash was present at the hospital for his son's treatment at 7:00 PM on 04.05.2019. This scientific evidence directly negates the petitioner’s claim of his presence at the crime scene in Mangalpura at that specific time. Although the petitioner/complainant claimed that the incident occurred in a residential area and was witnessed by neighbours like Narendra Mali and co-tenants, Rani Rajpoot and Balram Patidar but she failed to produce any of these independent witnesses before the learned trial Court during the protest proceedings. In the absence of corroboration from neutral parties, this Court cannot rely solely on the self-serving and contradictory statement of the complainant. 13. This Court finds that the present petition has failed to point out any legal infirmity or miscarriage of justice in the order dated 03.06.2022. The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and only to prevent the abuse of the process of law. 14. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of. (CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J GAURAV SHARMA /60