[2026:RJ-JP:12810] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3431/2019 Dewajyoti Manjhi S/o Shri Tapan Manjhi, R/o Village Chelod Po- lice Station Raniganj District Wardhman (West) West Bengal ----Accused-Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. The S.H.O., Police Station Mahesh Nagar Jaipur City (South) 3. Kusma Kumar Meena D/o Shri Babu Lal Meena, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur, Jaitpuri Colony, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Anoop Kumar JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/03/2026 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:12810] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-3431/2019] 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 criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned FIR No.526/2018 registered at the Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur City (South), for the offences punishable under Section(s) 376(2)(n), 201 & 506 IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecutrix, who is a major lady, was living in a live-in-relationship with the petitioner and she was consenting party but due to some dispute occurred between them and on that pretext the instant impugned FIR has been registered against the petitioner. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant misc. petition for quashing of the FIR. Counsel further submits that considering the above submissions, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed an interim order dated 05.07.2019 whereby the Investigating Agency was directed not to submit the charge-sheet. 5. Counsel further submits that during pendency of the instant petition, the prosecutrix has solemnised marriage with another person and out from the said wedlock, children have also begotten now. She is not interested in further prosecuting the matter against the petitioner and in this regard she has submitted an affidavit before this Court indicating that she has no objection in case, the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are quashed. [2026:RJ-JP:12810] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-3431/2019] 6. This fact has not been disputed by counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and he accepts the factum of compromise being arrived at between the parties. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made in the petition. 8. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 9. The veracity of the affidavit and the contents thereof cannot be relied upon by this Court. Since, the prosecutrix does not want to prosecute the petitioner and looking to the fact that she has performed marriage with some other person and is leading a happy married life with him, then, under such circumstances, she can appear before the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer is expected to record her supplementary statement in the light of the changed circumstances. It is, therefore, expected from the Investigating Officer that in case, no offence is made out from the supplementary statement of the prosecutrix, then, the authority concerned will be free to form his opinion accordingly and submit the conclusion report of the investigation, before the competent Court of Law under Section 173 Cr.P.C. If the petitioner still feels aggrieved by the conclusion of the investigation drawn by the Investigating Officer, under the changed circumstances, he will be at liberty to file a fresh petition. Till submission of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. 10. However, it is made clear that the order of not taking coercive action against the petitioner shall not be construed as a stay. The Investigating Officer would be at liberty to submit the [2026:RJ-JP:12810] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-3431/2019] report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. as per the law. The victim has put in appearance in person before the Court and accepted the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties. She has been duly identified by her counsel and her presence has been marked. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Shivam-Puneet/3