Deepak Sharma S/O Shri R K Sharma, Vs State of Rajasthan

Raju @ Rajendra Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Madan Singh Shekhawat, Presently Security In Charge Hotel Days, G- Club, Durgapura, P.s. Jawahar Circle, Jaipur.

¶14

V1 Infra Developers Private Limited, A Company Incorporated Pursuant To The Provision Of Company Act, 1956 And Having Registered Office At Plot No. 10, Airport Plaza, Durgapura, P.s. Jawahar Circle, Jaipur Through Authorised Signatory Deepak Sharma.

¶15

----Petitioners

¶16

Versus

¶17

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

¶18

The SHO, Police Station Jawahar Circle, Jaipur (East).

¶19

Victim

¶20

----Respondents

¶21

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Jitendra Mitrucka Mr. Avi Airun Ms. Sapna Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP with Ms. Neha Goyal

¶22

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

[2026:RJ-JP:20256]

[CRLMP-5344/2023]

(2 of 7)

Order

13/05/2026

Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these criminal misc. petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel for the parties, their arguments have been heard together and the same are being decided by this common order.

¶29

A common prayer has been made in both the criminal misc. petitions for quashing the proceedings of the impugned FIR No.13/2022 registered at the Police Station Jawahar Circle, Jaipur City (East) for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 323 and 363 IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 (l), 6, 16 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners being hotel personnel hold different positions in the Hotel Days i.e. the place of occurrence and the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR by the respondent No.2-victim against the petitioners indicate that in spite of having information/knowledge of commission of rape upon her in the aforementioned hotel, they all failed to inform the concerned Police Station and destroyed the evidence of the occurrence of the alleged incident. He submits that on the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the impugned FIR has been registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “the Act of 2012”).

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the victim along with the main accused-Dhruv Prajapat stayed in the said hotel on the fateful day i.e. 31.12.2021. Thereafter, the Police arrived at the hotel premises, after receiving a call at the Control

(3 of 7)

[2026:RJ-JP:20256]

[CRLMP-5344/2023]

Room No.100. The Police, on the basis of the aforesaid call, recorded the following Rojnamcha Rapat, which is reproduced as

¶36

under:-

¶37

bl le; eu ,-,l-vkbZ e; thi ljdkjh vkj-ts- 14 ;w-,Q7354 pkyd çse'kadj 5843 e; edku- fç;adk 12527 ds jiV la[;k 17 jkstukevke dk jokuk'kqnk gkftj Fkkuk vk;kA gkykr bl çdkj jgs fd Fkkus ls eqrkfcd lwpuk jokuk gksdj lwpukdrkZ ls lEidZ dj gksVy Mst nqxkZiqjk igq¡pk tgk¡ lwpukdrkZ csuh ekStwn feyh ftlus crk;k fd esjh lgsyh ruq lksaydh dk eksckbZy Qksu mlds nksLr /kzqo v'kksd HkkbZ ds }kjk okfil ugha nsus ij ruq lksayadh ds ukjkt gksus ij eSus /kzqo v'kksd dks Mjkus ds fy, ruq lksyadh ds lkFk xyr dke gksus dh lwpuk iqfyl daVªksy :e ¼100 uEcj½ dks ns nh FkhA eu ,-,l-vkbZ us Fkkuk gktk ls efgyk dkfu- fç;adk 12527 dks ryc fd;kA ryc'kqnk efgyk dkfu- mifLFkr gqbZ] ftl ij eu ,-,l-vkbZ- us funsZ'kkuqlkj efgyk dkfu- }kjk ruq lksyadh ls lwpuk ds lEcU/k esa ,dkUr esa iwNrkN dh xbZA ruq lksyadh us iwNrkN esa crk;k fd esjs lkFk dksbZ xyr dke ugha gqvk gSA esjk eksckbZy esjs nksLr /kzqo v'kksd HkkbZ dks fn;k Fkk] tks mlls Dyc ds vUnj dagh xqe gks x;k] ftl ij eSus ukjkt gksdj eSus esjh lgsyh dks ;g ckr crkbZ Hkh esjh lgsyh csuh us esjs lkFk xyr dke gksus dh >wBh lwpuk iqfyl dks ns nh Fkh] ftl ij eu ,,lvkbZ efgyk dkfu- dh ekStwnxh esa ruq lksayadh iq=h ukjk;.k lksyadh mez&17 o"kZ] tkfr&jktiwr] fuoklh&vktkn uxj] fd'kux<] ftyk vtesj dks vius in ,oa inLFkkiu ls voxr djokdj lwpuk ds lEcU/k esa iwNrkN dj ohfM;ksxzkQh dh xbZ ,oa ekSds ij gh ruq lksyadh us dksbZ dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha pkgus ckcr~ ,d çkFkZuk eu ,,lvkbZ dks is'k fd;kA ekSds ls gkykr Jheku~ ,l-,p-vkslkgc o ihlhvkj dks voxr djok;s x;sA ruq lksyadh o lwpukdrkZ csuh dks vko';d equkflc fgnk;r dj eu ,,lvkbZ e; gejkgh tkIrk ds jokuk gksdj gkftj Fkkuk vk;kA okilh ij Mh-vks- MîwVh cftEes Lo;a yhA jiV ntZ gSA

¶38

Report Printed on (fjiksVZ eqnz.k dh) 21-01-2022 19:44 Signature (हस्ताक्षर)

¶39

Report Printed by (ftlds }kjk fjiksVZ) Ramesh Kumar Name

¶40

Asst. SI (Assistant Sub-Inspector) Rank नि�रीक्षक

¶41

Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid rojnamcha rapat was recorded by the concerned Police Officials, wherein the prosecutrix denied the alleged incident and admitted that she has given a false information to the Police. Learned counsel submits

[2026:RJ-JP:20256]

[CRLMP-5344/2023]

(4 of 7)

that videography of the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded on the same day i.e. on 01.01.2022 by the duty staff present in the hotel. He further submits that, on the same day, the prosecutrix submitted an application to the SHO Police Station, Jawahar Circle, Jaipur (East) that she does not want any proceedings in the instant case, which is reproduced as under:-

¶46

lsokesa]

¶47

Jheku~ Fkkukf/kdkjh egksn;] tokgj lfdZy Fkkuk] t;iqj jktLFkkuA

¶48

fo"k;%& eksckbZy ugha nsus ckcr~A

¶49

egksn;]

¶50

Jheku~ eSa ruq lksyadh vius Ýs.M ds xyr O;ogkj djus o esjk eksckbZy ugha nsus ij eSus 100 uEcj ij d‚y fd;kA esjh lgsyh us ftlls iqfyl Fkkuk ls iqfyl vk xbZ rHkh esjs Ýs.M /kqzo us esjk eksckbZy okfil ns fn;kA bl mijksä esa fdlh Hkh çdkj dh dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha pkgrh gw¡ fdlh çdkj dh dksbZ ckr ugha gSA

¶51

Learned counsel submits that the prosecutrix or her family members never informed/reported any ofs the officials of the said Hotel regarding any kind of untoward incident. Hence, under these circumstances, there was no question of reporting the matter to the concerned Police Station and the room was cleaned in the usual/routine manner, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioners have not committed any offence punishable under Section 21 of the Act of 2012. He further submits that when the principal accused-Dhruv Prajapat, against whom the allegations of rape were levelled by the victim, submitted anticipatory bail

[2026:RJ-JP:20256]

[CRLMP-5344/2023]

(5 of 7)

application before this Court, the victim along with her motherIndu Bala Rajawat submitted an application with an affidavit that, in fact, no such incident has occurred. He submits that on account of the pressure of Police, the impugned FIR has been lodged against him and now, the prosecutrix does not want any proceedings to be taken/initiated against the principal accusedDhruv Prajapat. Learned counsel submits that on the basis of the aforesaid application submitted by the victim, supported by the affidavit of her mother Indu Bala Rajawat, anticipatory bail was granted to the principal accused-Dhruv Prajapat by this Court vide order dated 07.02.2022 while deciding S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.1196/2022.

¶56

Learned counsel submits that at a later point of time, an application seeking cancellation of bail was submitted by the victim before this Court by way of filing SB Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No.79/2022 and the same was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.05.2022. Learned counsel submits that under these circumstances, the petitioners have not committed any offence and inspite of the above, they have been charge-sheeted. Learned counsel further submits that filing of charge-sheet against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of the process of law. Hence, a prayer has been made for quashing the proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR, qua the petitioners. 8. Per contra , learned public prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that as per the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR registered on 04.01.2022, clear and specific allegations are available against the petitioners indicating that they did not inform the Police about commission of the alleged offence and they have

(6 of 7)

[2026:RJ-JP:20256]

[CRLMP-5344/2023]

destroyed the evidence of the alleged crime that is why chargesheet has been submitted against the petitioners under Section 21 of the Act of 2012. Hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and these criminal misc. petitions are liable to be rejected.

¶61

No one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant despite service of notice. 10. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 11. Perusal of the record as well as documents annexed therein indicate that the prosecutrix stayed with the principal accusedDhruv Prajapat at Hotel Days on 31.12.2021. The Rojnamcha Rapat registered with the Police Station Jawahar Circle, District Jaipur City (East) indicates that on the receipt of a call at Control Room No.100, the police officials arrived at the spot on 01.01.2022, where prosecutrix denied any kind of untoward incident being occurred with her and she submitted an application that she does not want any proceedings to be taken/initiated against the petitioners in the instant matter. Neither any documentary evidence is available on the record nor this fact has been mentioned in the said rapat that the prosecutrix ever informed the petitioners or the duty staff posted in the hotel about commission of any kind of untoward incident being occurred with her on 31.12.2021. Under these circumstances, the petitioners did not deem it necessary to inform the concerned Police Station with regard to any untoward incident, if any, occurred with the prosecutrix. Hence, under these circumstances, no prima facie offence is made out against the petitioners.

[2026:RJ-JP:20256]

[CRLMP-5344/2023]

(7 of 7)

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR, qua the petitioners, to the extent of Section 21 of the Act of 2012 stands quashed and set aside.

¶66

In view of the above, both the criminal misc. petitions stand allowed.

¶67

It is expected from the Trial Court to decide the matter on merits against the principal accused-Dhruv Prajapat in accordance with law.

¶68

Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion about the correctness of the allegation of rape, which has been levelled against the principal accused-Dhruv Prajapat. It is made clear that whatever has been observed by this Court is only to the extent of the fact regarding non-informing the alleged incident by the staff of the hotel.

¶69

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶70

Karan/11-12

Deepak Sharma S/O Shri R K Sharma, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Sharma S/O Shri R K Sharma, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Mahendra Tatwade S/O Mr. Ram Prasad Tatwade, Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajeev Tittal S/O Shri Jitendra Singh Tittal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Appu International Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Sonu Ram Pachauri S/O Late Shri Shibbo, Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajay Kumar Meena Son of Shri Bhanwar Lal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Hakimuddin S/O Rehmat Vs the State of Rajasthan