Allowed

Anuj Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 May 2024CRLMP/2206/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR for rape under Sections 376 and 417 IPC alleging sex on a false promise of marriage. The High Court found the complainant's relationship consensual over two years, with no evidence of misconception-based consent, and the parties had settled amicably. The Court exercised Section 482 CrPC jurisdiction and quashed the FIR.

What the court decided

AI extract

Anuj Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:20887]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2206/2024

¶4

Anuj Yadav S/o Shri Rajveer Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Navta Pacheri Kalla, Tehsil Buhana, Dist. Jhunjhunu (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Surbhi Jangid D/o Vijay Kumar, R/o Radhe Radhe Pg Kumaro Ka Bhatta, Surajpole, Udaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. PradeepChoudhary
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP
	Mr. Hari Shankar Shrimali for complainant

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶12

Order

¶13

09/05/2024

¶14

By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

¶15

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and F.I.R. No.58/2024 (04.02.2024) for offence under Sections 376, 376(2)(N), 417 I.P.C. registered at Police Station Surajpol (Udaipur) may kindly be quashed and set aside.”

¶16

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 lodged an FIR. No.58/2024 dated 04.02.2024 at Police Station Surajpol, District Udaipur alleging stating inter-alia that the petitioner had maintained physical relationship with her for about 2 years (January 2022 to January 2024) on a pretext that he would marry her. In the impugned FIR, it was alleged that the

[2024:RJ-JD:20887]

[CRLMP-2206/2024]

(2 of 4)

consent given by respondent No.2 was based on misconception caused by false promise of marriage. However, the petitioner has refused to marry her and had performed engagement ceremony (sagai) with some other girl instead.

¶21

Learned counsel submitted that the respondent No.2 is a well educated mature girl. It is difficult to accept that she maintained physical relationship with petitioner for about 2 years only because he had promise to marry her someday. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that from a bare perusal of the impugned FIR, no case of false promise to marry is made out against the petitioner and therefore, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶22

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that during the pendency of the present criminal misc. petition both the parties have settled their dispute and have arrived at a compromise in the present matter. Therefore, no purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings alive. Hence, the FIR alongwith all consequent proceedings arising out of the same may be quashed and set aside.

¶23

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he has received a factual report dated 01.05.2024 from the office of SHO, Police Station Surajpol, District Udaipur indicating that on 29.03.2024, the respondent No.2 has produced an affidavit stating that she has settled the dispute with the petitioner and have arrived at a compromise in the matter. Thus, she does not want to proceed further in the matter arising out of impugned FIR.

(3 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:20887]

[CRLMP-2206/2024]

Learned counsel Shri. Hari Shankar Shrimali appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 did not raise any objection if the present petition is allowed in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶28

Heard.

¶29

True it is, that normally it is not desirable to quash the FIR involving cases relating to serious offences including the sexual offences only on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties but in the present case, on a careful perusal of the impugned FIR, this Court finds that the respondent No.2 has admitted in the FIR that she had maintained consensual physical relationship with the petitioner for about 2 years. There is nothing on record to establish that the respondent No.2, who is above the age of 18 years, has consented to enter into a physical relationship only on the basis of false promise of marriage. From a perusal of the case file, this Court prima facie finds that the respondent No.2 had travelled to various places with the petitioner such as Ahmedabad, Amritsar, Jodhpur, Jaipur, Agra etc., out of her free will and volition and also maintained a consensual physical relationship.

¶30

In light of the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the parties have now entered into a compromise and have decided to settled their dispute amicably, this Court finds that it is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, the present petition is allowed.

[CRLMP-2206/2024]

[2024:RJ-JD:20887]

(4 of 4)

The impugned FIR. No.58/2024 dated 04.02.2024 registered at Police Station Surajpol, District Udaipur is ordered to be quashed. All consequential proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR are also quashed and set aside.

¶35

The petition is accordingly disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.

¶36

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶37

132-TarunGoyal/-

Anuj Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Anuj Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajudevi Vs State and Anr.

Shanti Lal Vs State

Narayan Vs State of Rajasthan

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Jitendra @ Jeetu Vs State of Rajasthan