[2026:RJ-JP:25247] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1430/2020 URN: CRLMP / 2440U / 2020 1. Arvind Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Govind Sahay Sharma, Aged About 22 Years, Resident of Village and Post Salempur, Tehsil Sapotara, District Karauli (Raj.) 2. Bhupendra Sharma S/o Shri Govind Sahay Sharma, Aged About 19 Years, Resident of Village and Post Salempur, Tehsil Sapotara, District Karauli (Raj.) ----Accused/Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through PP 2. Chandra Kishore S/o Shri Shyam Sundar, Resident of 51/C, Ganga Vihar, L.M.S. Circle, Mangyawas, Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Complainant/Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Anil Kumar Tailor Mr.Manish Yadav Mr.Raghvendra Singh Ms.Swati Tank For Respondent(s) : Mr.Narendra Singh Dhakar, PP Mr.Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr.Arun Machya, Addl.SP (Presently-Vice Principal, Central Detective Training Institute, Jaipur) JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 07/07/2026 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 [2026:RJ-JP:25247] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-1430/2020] 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. 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 prayer has been made to quash the impugned FIR No.208/2017, registered at the Police Station Shipra Path, District Jaipur South for the offence punishable under Section 376D IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the prosecutrix is a major lady of the age of 19 years and she has falsely booked the petitioners in the instant case for the alleged incident dated 28.07.2016 for which a delayed report has been lodged by her on 22.03.2017. Counsel submits that there were numerous chats between the prosecutrix and the petitioner-Arvind Kumar Sharma on Facebook, after the alleged incident, which indicates that no such incident has occurred with her. Counsel submits that when the impugned FIR registered, the matter was investigated by eight Investigating Officers, out of which six Investigating Officers have not found any involvement of the petitioners. However, the Police is still bent upon to apprehend the petitioners. Counsel further submits that the petitioner No.2- Bhupendra Sharma was a minor at the time of the alleged offence, but during the course of investigation, the petitioners have been [2026:RJ-JP:25247] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-1430/2020] declared as absconders and thereafter, a reward was also declared for the person who informs the Investigating Agency about their whereabouts. Counsel submits that the aforementioned act of the Investigating Agency is in contravention of Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which states that the identity of a minor/juvenile cannot be allowed to be exposed in the course of any inquiry, investigation or judicial procedure. Counsel further submits that the impugned FIR was registered against five accused persons, namely, Arvind Sharma, Bhupendra Sharma, Jitesh, Suraj Choudhary & Dipesh, but the Police is not taking any steps to apprehend rest of the co-accused persons, namely, Jitesh, Suraj Choudhary & Dipesh. Counsel also submits that the name of the above five accused persons were also mentioned in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Counsel submits that the Police is not taking any steps to apprehend the rest of the co-accused persons and want to apprehend the petitioners only. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that the involvement of four accused persons, namely, Arvind Sharma, Bhupendra Sharma, Jitesh & Dipesh was found to be prima facie proved. 6. On instructions of this Court, the Investigating Officer Mr.Arun Machya, Addl.SP. has put appearance in-person and he submits that appropriate steps were taken by the concerned Investigating Officer with regard to the investigation of the Facebook chats between the accused-Arvind Sharma and the prosecutrix, however, the prosecutrix did not provide the required [2026:RJ-JP:25247] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-1430/2020] details at the relevant time and in the meantime, the time period for seeking relevant information from Facebook (Meta Platforms) expired, hence, the relevant information could not be collected. He submits that on the basis of the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., prima facie case is found to be proved against four accused persons and no case was found to be proved against the co-accused Suraj Choudhary as he has not been named as an accused in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that under such circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and the instant petition is liable to be rejected. 8. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 9. Perusal of the contents of the impugned FIR and the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. reveal commission of cognizable offence. The correctness of the allegations and the defence of the accused cannot be examined by this Court at this stage, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Certainly, this task has been assigned to the Investigating Agency, who after thorough investigation, has found prima facie involvement of the petitioners along-with other two accused persons in the alleged incident. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Others Vs. Bhajan Lal & Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has categorically held that this Court while exercising its powers contained under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not allowed to [2026:RJ-JP:25247] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-1430/2020] meticulously examine the correctness of the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR. 11. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court finds no valid ground to entertain the present petition. Accordingly, the same is liable to be and is hereby rejected. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. 12. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to take all the available grounds and defences at the appropriate stage of the trial. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma/1