[2026:RJ-JP:15919] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.4595/2023 Brijendra Singh S/o Shri Charan Singh, Resident Of 1. B 805, Kamla Aashirwad Sector 3, Bharatpur, Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Victim ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhay Singh Rathore Mr. Sushil Yadav Mr. Tanay Choudhary for Mr. Kapil Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 16/04/2026 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned FIR No.254/2023 registered with Police Station Kotwali Bharatpur, District Bharatpur for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 323, 341, 504 and 506 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of filing of impugned FIR, the prosecutrix was a major lady aged 28 years. He submits that the prosecutrix was in a consenting relationship with the petitioner inspite of knowing the fact that both of them were married to different persons. He submits that the petitioner was residing separately from his own wife and a divorce petition was filed by his wife, which was pending before the competent court. He submits that inspite of the above, th prosecutrix lodged an FIR on earlier occasion i.e. FIR No.94/2022 with Mahila Police Station, Bharatpur for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 377, 420, 323 and 341 IPC. Learned [2026:RJ-JP:15919] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-4595/2023] counsel submits that after thorough investigation in the aforesaid FIR upon finding no case against the petitioner, the Police submitted Final Report (Negative) and found the case to be false. He submits that when the Final Report (Negative) was submitted before the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate No.1, Bharatpur, notices were issued to the complainant-respondent No.2 and she appeared in person on 16.06.2022 and admitted the above factual aspect of the matter and she raised no objection in case the Final Report (Negative) is accepted, as she has settled her dispute with the petitioner. He submits that on the basis of the aforesaid statement made by the prosecutrix, the Final Report (Negative) in earlier FIR No.94/2022 registered with Mahila Police Station, Bharatpur was accepted by the concerned Magistrate vide order dated 16.06.2022. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now again with regard to similar allegations, the successive impugned FIR No.254/2023 has been lodged by the complainant-respondent No.2 against the petitioner with a different Police Station i.e. Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur for the same offences under Sections 376, 323, 341, 504 and 506 IPC. Learned counsel submits that lodging of successive FIR with regard to the same allegations amount to abuse of the process of law, hence, in order to secure the ends of justice, the same is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that allegations against the petitioner are that he has sexually assaulted the prosecutrix, hence, a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner to proceed against him for the [2026:RJ-JP:15919] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-4595/2023] offences as stated above, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the present criminal misc. petition is liable to be rejected. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Perusal of the earlier FIR bearing No.94/2022 registered with Mahila Police Station, Bharatpur for the offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 377, 420, 323 & 341 IPC reveals that similar kind of allegations have been levelled against the petitioner by the prosecutrix alleging that the petitioner has committed the offence of sexual assault with her on the pretext that he would perform marriage with her. The aforesaid FIR was thoroughly investigated by the Investigating Agency and no offence was found to be proved against the petitioner that is why Final Report (Negative) was submitted by the concerned Police Station in favour of the petitioner. 7. After submission of Final Report (Negative) in favour of the petitioner in earlier FIR No.94/2022, notices were issued to the complainant on 16.06.2022 for submission of her objections. She appeared in person and submitted her no objection against acceptance of the aforesaid Final Report (Negative) on the pretext that compromise has taken place between them and she does not want to prosecute the petitioner. The petitioner put his signatures before the court concerned and in the presence of the prosecutrix, the Final Report (Negative) was accepted and it was found that no prima facie case was made against the petitioner for proceeding against him for the above stated offences. [2026:RJ-JP:15919] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-4595/2023] 8. Now again with regard to the same and similar allegations, the successive FIR i.e. the impugned FIR No.254/2023 has been lodged by the complainant-respondent No.2 against the petitioner with different Police Stations i.e. Kotwali, Bharatpur for the offences under Sections 376, 323, 341, 504 & 506 IPC. 9. A bare perusal of both the FIRs i.e. FIR No.94/2022 registered with Mahila Police Station, Bharatpur and FIR No.254/2023 registered with Police Station Kotwali Bharatpur reveals that allegations are almost same and identical. It is settled proposition of law that successive FIR with regard to the same allegations is not permissible in the eyes of law, as this view has been taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181. 10. Once a Final Report (Negative) in the earlier FIR where allegations of similar nature have been made, has been accepted in the presence of the prosecutrix-complainant, lodging of successive impugned FIR with regard to the same allegations amount to gross abuse of the process of law, hence, the same is not tenable and sustainable in the eyes of law in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.T. Antony (supra). 11. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons stated above, the present criminal misc. petition stands allowed. The impugned FIR and the entire proceedings arising out of the same stand quashed and set-aside. 12. Stay application as well as all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/18