[2026:RJ-JP:15391] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7344/2022 Bahadur Son of Late Bharat Lal Meena, Resident of Village Bilona Chor, Police Station Mandawari, District Dausa (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Victim, R/o ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Sharma Mr. Utkarsh Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore-PP Ms. Neha Goyal Mr. Yogesh Chawla Mr. Jagdish Chandra-CI, SHO Batoda, Sawai Madhopur JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 13/04/2026 1. By way of filing the instant misc. petition, a prayer has been made to quash the impugned FIR No. 95/2022, registered at the Police Station Batoda, District Sawai Madhopur for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 354D and 376D IPC along with Section 67 of the I.T. Act, 2008. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecutrix is a major lady, aged about 32 years. Counsel submits that the prosecutrix filed a complaint under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner with the Police Station Batoda, District Sawai Madhopur on 14.03.2022 wherein she alleged that around two years ago she borrowed a sum of Rs. 40,000/- from the petitioner and out of said amount, she repaid only Rs. 10,000/- to [2026:RJ-JP:15391] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-7344/2022] the petitioner and when rest of the amount i.e. Rs. 30,000/- was not repaid by the prosecutrix to the petitioner, the petitioner took possession of her brother-in-laws motor cycle on 07.03.2022 and asked them to repay the rest of the amount in order to get back the motor- cycle. Counsel submits that on account of the aforesaid financial dispute between the parties, the aforesaid complaint was filed on 14.03.2022 wherein there is no allegation levelled against the petitioner averring that the petitioner has committed any offence of rape upon the prosecutrix. Counsel submits that around two and half months after the aforesaid complaint, the impugned FIR has been lodged by the prosecutrix against the petitioner wherein allegations of sexual assault have been levelled but no date or time has been mentioned. Counsel submits that if at all the incident of sexual assault has been committed upon the prosecutrix and caused by the petitioner, then certainly she could have levelled these allegations in the earlier complaint submitted by herself against the petitioner under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C.. Hence the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the impugned FIR are false and interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant oppose the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submit that the allegation of sexual assault has been levelled against the petitioner in the impugned FIR registered by the prosecutrix. Hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the instant misc. petition is liable to be rejected. [2026:RJ-JP:15391] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-7344/2022] 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the complaint filed by the prosecutrix against the petitioner under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. reflects that there is a financial dispute between the parties. The prosecutrix has borrowed a sum of Rs. 40,000/- from the petitioner, out of which she repaid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner and when rest of the money was not repaid by the prosecutrix, the petitioner had taken possession of her brother-in-law’s motor-cycle when she was travelling with her brother-in-law-Rahul to Madhopuriya via Balaji on 07.03.2022. On the next date, the petitioner told the prosecutrix that the motor-cycle would be returned only, when the rest of the borrowed money is repaid to him. It has also been alleged in the impugned FIR that the petitioner threatened her with murder in case the money was not repaid to him. 6. Considering the aforesaid complaint and the allegations leveled therein, the SHO Police Station Batoda was of the view that an untoward incident disturbing the peace and tranquility was caused and accordingly, a complaint under Sections 107 and 157 Cr.P.C was submitted against the petitioner. 7. Bare perusal of the aforesaid complaint does not reveal that any incident of sexual assault has occurred upon the prosecutrix. it appears that after around two and half months from the date of the aforesaid complaint, the instant FIR has been lodged wherein sexual assault has been levelled by the prosecutrix against the petitioner without any specific date or time with regard to the alleged offence. [2026:RJ-JP:15391] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-7344/2022] 8. Had any such incident actually occurred with the prosecutrix, the same was caused by the petitioner, then certainly she could have mentioned the aforesaid incident in the earlier complaint filed by her under Sections 107 and 157 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner. It appears that on account of financial dispute between the parties, the instant FIR has been lodged to abuse the process of law. 9. In view of the above, the entire proceedings arising out the impugned FIR registered with Police Station Banota, District Sawai Madhopur stands quashed and the present petition stands allowed. 10. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/114