[2026:RJ-JP:15282] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6132/2019 Lalit Meena Son Of Shivram Meena, Resident Of 9A, Shivram Colony, Jagatpura, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Kumari Priya Meena Daughter Of Shri Shivram Meena, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Village Veerasana Tehsil Mahua District Dausa Presently Residing At Plot No. 2, Prem Vihar Colony, Jagatpura, Pratap Nagar Jaipur City (East), (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP with Ms. Neha Goyal. Mr. Amit Puri for Mr. Nishant Sharma. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 13/04/2026 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 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. [2026:RJ-JP:15282] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-6132/2019] 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 made to the impugned FIR No. 707/2019 registered with the Police Station Pratapnagar, District Jaipur City (East) for the offences punishable under Sections 366 & 376 IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecutrix is a major lady and her age was 25 years at the time of registration of the impugned FIR. As per the allegations levelled in the FIR, the petitioner and the prosecutrix were in a relationship and the petitioner promised to perform marriage with the prosecutrix. Thereafter, when the petitioner denied to fulfil the promise and perform marriage with her, the instant impugned FIR with false allegations has been registered, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the prayer and submitted that at the time of the first incident, which occurred in the year 2011, the prosecutrix was minor and her age was 17 years. Counsel submitted that it is settled principle that, consent of a minor for any sexual relationship is no consent in the eyes of law. He further submitted that on the pretext of marriage, sexual intercourse was done by the petitioner with the prosecutrix, and subsequently, he denied to fulfil the promise and perform marriage with her. Hence, under these circumstances, commission of cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. [2026:RJ-JP:15282] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-6132/2019] 6. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that after investigation in the instant matter, prima facie case was found to be proved against the petitioner under Section 366 & 376 IPC and the police has proposed to submit charge-sheet against him for the above stated offences. Hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. 7. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 8. A bare reading of the contents of the FIR and the allegations levelled therein reveals that at the time of the first incident, the age of the prosecutrix was 17 years and she was a minor, and as such the allegations levelled in the FIR reveal commission of a cognizable offence. The correctness of the allegations cannot be adjudicated by this Court at this stage, while exercising its powers contained under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Certainly, this task has been assigned to the Investigating Officer who has already investigated the matter and found prima facie role of the petitioner in the instant matter. 9. Considering the 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/defences as raised before this Court, at the appropriate stage of the trial before the Trial Court. 10. Copy of the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. [2026:RJ-JP:15282] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-6132/2019] 11. The factual report dated 13.04.2026 furnished by SHO, Police Station Pratap Nagar, District Jaipur (East) is ordered to be retained on record. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Shivam-Puneet/3