[2026:RJ-JP:13513] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8200/2019 1. Sharwan Lal Meena S/o Sh. Chhoturam Meena, aged about 80 Years, R/o Jorwal Niketan Naya Bas, Near Meena Dharmshala, Police Station Aravali Vihar, Alwar, District Alwar, Raj. 2. Dharm Singh Meena S/o Sh. Sharwan Lal Meena, aged about 35 Years, R/o Jorwal Niketan Naya Bas, Near Meena Dharmshala, Police Station Aravali Vihar, Alwar, District Alwar, Raj. 3. Sher Singh S/o Sh. Sharwan Lal Meena, aged about 32 Years, R/o Jorwal Niketan Naya Bas, Near Meena Dharmshala, Police Station Aravali Vihar, Alwar, District Alwar, Raj. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through PP. 2. "R" ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gurvindra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore-PP Mr Arvind Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 01/04/2026 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 [2026:RJ-JP:13513] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-8200/2019] 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. 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 prayer has been made for quashing the impugned FIR No. 438/2019, registered with Police Station Mahila Thana, Alwar for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 498-A IPC. 4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the prosecutrix has solemnized marriage with the petitioner-Dharam Singh Meena. Since Dharam Singh Meena was a habitual drinker who used to remain intoxicated and consumed liquor every day, hence, as per the customs prevailing at the relevant time, the prosecutrix started residing with the petitioner-Sher Singh and remained in relationship with him for more than seven years. Counsel submits that now, the instant FIR has been lodged by her after a lapse of so many years with the allegations that by making a false promise of marriage, sexual relationship was made by the accused-Sher Singh with her for about eight years and it was alleged that she was sexually exploited during this entire period. Counsel submits that making false promise of marriage does not fall within the purview of the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC, as this law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uday Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2003(4) SCC 46 and by [2026:RJ-JP:13513] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-8200/2019] the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, at the Principal Seat Jodhpur in the case of Chaina Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Anr. in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3338/2016, decided on 12.07.2017. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant oppose the arguments raised by counsel for the petitionerd and submit that the prosecutrix is a legally wedded wife of the accused Dharam Singh Meena and without dissolution of their marriage by the competent Court of law, the accused petitioner- Sher Singh cannot perform sexual intercourse with the proseuctrix by treating her as his wife. He cogently submits that on account of the relationship based on a false promise, two children have been begotten, namely a daughter aged 7 years and a son aged 4 years. He further submits that Sher Singh is now intending to solemnize marriage with another lady. Hence, under these circumstances, the accused Sher Singh has sexually exploited the prosecutrix for a period of eight years by giving a false promise to perform/solemnize marriage with her. Counsel submits that the allegations of rape are prima facie proved against Sher Singh in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the allegation of harassment has been established against the husband Dharam Singh Meena in her above statement, hence interference of this Court is not warranted and the present petition is liable to be rejected. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. [2026:RJ-JP:13513] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-8200/2019] 7. Perusal of the record as well as statement of the prosecutrix indicate that the marriage of the prosecutrix was solemnized with the accused Dharam Singh Meena on 24.11.2012. Since her husband was a habitual drunkard therefore, the prosecutrix returned to her parental home after two months of her marriage. Thereafter, the father-in-law of the prosecutrix along with the accused Sher Singh, came to her parental home and assured her father that she would be living as the wife of the accused Sher Singh Meena. In such circumstances, the prosecutrix started residing with the accused Sher Singh. The accused Sher Singh assured to perform marriage with her and on this pretext, sexual relationship was made and thereafter, two children were born. Now, after keeping the prosecutrix as his wife for a considerable time, he refused to keep her and threw her out from his house. For the aforesaid allegation, the instant FIR has been registered by the prosecutrix not only against her husband but also against her brother in law-Sher Singh. 8. The allegations levelled against the petitioners reveal commission of a cognizable offence. The correctness of the allegations cannot be examined and adjudged by this Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Certainly this task has been assigned to the Investigating Agency who has already prima facie found the allegations to be proved against both the accused after conducting investigation. In the case of petitioner- Sher Singh, if it is established that consent was given by the prosecutrix, he would be at liberty to take all such defence at the appropriate stage of the trial before the Trial [2026:RJ-JP:13513] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-8200/2019] Court, but the same cannot be adjudged at the stage of quashing the FIR. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the present misc. petition stand disposed of. stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/5