[2026:RJ-JP:10237] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2025/2019 Smt Neelam D/o Late Shri Mahesh, R/o Mohalla Johda, Patel Nagar, Ps Kotwali, District Alwar, Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp. 2. Hemant S/o Shri Nihal Singh, R/o Mohalla Johda, Patel Nagar, Ps Kotwali, District Alwar, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 10/03/2026 1. By way of fling the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 20.01.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Alwar in Criminal Case No.23/115/2014, by which the application submitted by the complainant-petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been partly allowed and cognizance has been taken against the accused-respondent under Section 354 IPC only, but cognizance under Section 376/511 IPC has not been taken. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, both the accused- respondent as well as the complainant-petitioner have approached the Revisional Court by way of filing two separate revision petitions, but the same were consolidated and dismissed by a common order dated 12.09.2018 and accordingly, the order dated 20.01.2016 passed by the Court below has been upheld. [2026:RJ-JP:10237] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2025/2019] 3. Aggrieved by both the orders passed by both the Courts below, the complainant petitioner as well as the accused- respondent have approached this Court by way of filing two different misc. petitions. Out of the two petitions, S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.416/2019 submitted by the accused-respondent has been rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.02.2019 while the instant petition submitted by the complainant-petitioner is still pending. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner submits that looking to the evidence available on the record, the instant case falls within the purview of attempt to rape, hence, under these circumstances, the Trial Court should have taken cognizance against the accused-respondent under Section 376/511 IPC, but instead of doing so, cognizance has only been taken under Section 354 IPC, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. At this stage, instead of interfering with the orders passed by the Courts below, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant misc. petition granting liberty to the complainant- petitioner to raise all the available objections, which have been taken before this Court in the present misc. petition, before the Court below and argue as to whether, on the basis of the evidence of the prosecutrix-complainant, any offence under Section 376/511 IPC is made out or not, at the final stage of the trial. 7. In case, such argument is raised, it is expected from the Court below to deal with the same and pass appropriate order, [2026:RJ-JP:10237] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2025/2019] strictly in accordance with law on the basis of the evidence available on the record. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/35