Allowed

Ajay Kumar Meena Son of Shri Bhanwar Lal, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 May 2026CRLMP/4717/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition sought quashing of a second FIR alleging rape under POCSO and IPC after an earlier FIR on the same incident alleged only abduction, with the victim's statements disclosing no sexual assault. Following Supreme Court precedent on contradictory successive FIRs, the court held the second FIR was fabricated abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.24/2022, P.S. Khatushyamji and all proceedings arising therefrom quashed and set aside.

Ajay Kumar Meena Son of Shri Bhanwar Lal, Vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:20259]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4717/2022

¶4

Ajay Kumar Meena Son Of Shri Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of Village Aloda, Police Station Station Khatushyamji, District Sikar (Raj).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶8

Smt. Rameshwari Devi Wife Of Shri Radheyshyam Ji, Resident Of Village Aloda, Police Station Khatu Shyamji, District Sikar (Raj).

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Hem Singh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP
	Mr. Rameshwar Prasad for
	Mr. RajKumar Garhwal

¶11

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

13/05/2026

¶14

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:20259]

[CRLMP-4717/2022]

(2 of 9)

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.

¶19

By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned FIR No.24/2022 registered with Police Station Khatushyamji, District Sikar for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 506 IPC and Section 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the alleged incident dated 29.12.2021, the real uncle of the prosecutrix, i.e. complainant-Hardeva Ram lodged FIR No.294/2021 with Police Station Khatushyamji, District Sikar for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 342 and 120B IPC against the petitioner, with the allegation that the petitioner has abducted his niece. Counsel submits that during the course of investigation of the aforesaid FIR No.294/2021, the victim “M” was recovered. Thereafter, her statements were recorded in the presence of her mother, wherein she deposed that at her own will, she went with the petitioner to Delhi in a train, where the Police caught them at the railway station and they were brought to the Police Station. She further deposed that no incident has occurred with her and she expressed her desire to reside with her parents. Counsel further submits that in the aforesaid FIR, statements of the victim “M” were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Sikar. Even there, she has not levelled any allegation of rape against the petitioner and she has stated that during the night around 10.30 PM on 29.12.2021 when

[2026:RJ-JP:20259]

[CRLMP-4717/2022]

(3 of 9)

she stepped outside her house, the petitioner along with another boy took her in a vehicle to Delhi, where the Police came and recovered them from railway station. Counsel submits that the victim “M” has not levelled any kind of allegation of rape against the petitioner in her statements. Counsel submits that the complainant-Hardeva Ram and the mother of the prosecutrix refused to conduct the medical examination of the victim “M” on the ground that no offence of rape has been committed upon her, hence they do not desire for her medical examination.

¶25

Counsel submits that in the aforesaid FIR, the petitioner was arrested. Thereafter, when he was produced before the concerned Court i.e. before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, the learned Magistrate took note of the fact that the concerned Investigating Officer had arrested the petitioner for the offence under Section 363 IPC, which is bailable in nature and strictures were passed against the concerned Investigating Officer and a letter was also sent to the Department for taking appropriate departmental action against the concerned Investigating Officer. Counsel submits that the petitioner was released on bail by passing the aforesaid order on 10.01.2022. Counsel submits that eight days thereafter, the impugned FIR has been lodged by the mother of the prosecutrix with the allegation that the petitioner has not only abducted her daughter, but also committed rape upon her. Counsel submits that the aforesaid FIR is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law and there cannot be two separate FIRs for the same incident. Hence, the proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR are liable to be quashed and set aside.

[2026:RJ-JP:20259]

[CRLMP-4717/2022]

(4 of 9)

Lastly, counsel argued that in the first FIR bearing No.294/2021, the petitioner has already been charge-sheeted for the offense under Section 363 IPC and he is facing trial before the concerned Court. Hence, a prayer has been made to quash the proceedings of the impugned FIR.

¶30

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-respondent opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that after thorough investigation in the present matter, a prima facie case was found to be proved against the petitioner and charge sheet has already been submitted for the abovestated offenses before the concerned Court. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and the instant petition is liable to be rejected.

¶31

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 9. Perusal of the earlier FIR No.294/2021 registered with Police Station Khatushyamji, District Sikar reveals that for the same incident dated 29.12.2021, an FIR was registered by the uncle of the victim, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner has abducted the victim and no allegations of rape have been levelled in the said FIR. The said FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 362, and 120B IPC. When the matter was investigated, the prosecutrix was recovered on 01.01.2022. When her statements were recorded in the presence of her mother, she has not levelled any kind of allegation of rape against the petitioner. She has simply stated that she went with the petitioner to Ringas Bheruji Temple, and thereafter, they went to Delhi. She

[2026:RJ-JP:20259]

[CRLMP-4717/2022]

(5 of 9)

further deposed that no incident has occurred with her and she also expressed her desire to reside with her parents. Thereafter, statements of the victim were recorded before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Siker. There also, she has not levelled any kind of allegation of rape or sexual assault against the petitioner. She has simply stated that she was forcefully abducted by the petitioner along with another boy in a vehicle, and she was taken to the Delhi and thereafter, the Police came and recovered her from Delhi Railway Station. Even the family members of the prosecutrix i.e. the complainant-respondent Rameshwari Devimother of the prosecutrix and her uncle refused for conduction of medical examination of the prosecutrix on the pretext that no incident of rape has occurred with the prosecutrix.

¶36

It is worthy to mention here that the petitioner was arrested in the aforesaid FIR No.294/2021, confined to the offense under Section 363 IPC and the same is bailable in nature. In spite, of above, he was arrested by the concerned Investigating Officer. Considering the aforesaid act of the Investigating Officer as serious and negligent, strictures were passed against him for arresting the petitioner in connection with a bailable offense. Hence, the concerned Department was also directed to take appropriate departmental action against the concerned Investigating Officer.

¶37

It is worthy to note here that the petitioner was granted bail on 10.01.2022, and the aforesaid orders were also passed by the concerned Court on 10.01.2022 itself. Eight days thereafter, the impugned FIR with the allegation of rape has been lodged by the mother of the prosecutrix.

[2026:RJ-JP:20259]

[CRLMP-4717/2022]

(6 of 9)

In the considered opinion of this Court, registration of subsequent FIR with a new story, which was never revealed in the earlier FIR i.e. No.294/2021 is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

¶42

In this context, it is relevant to refer to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag v. State of Telangana and another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1258 , wherein the facts of the case are that the appellant met the respondent through a matrimonial website while residing abroad, and they mutually agreed to marry. Upon returning to India, appellant allegedly engaged in sexual relations with the respondent, who later accused the appellant of obtaining consent deceitfully, under a false promise of marriage. Multiple FIRs were lodged initially under Sections 417 and 420 IPC, followed by a second FIR under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellant challenged the second FIR before the High Court of Kerala, seeking quashing thereof under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which was later on declined, leading to filing of the appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The question that arose for consideration was whether continuation of prosecution based on inherently contradictory and belated allegations of sexual exploitation, under a false promise of marriage constituted gross abuse of legal process.

¶43

After appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, while allowing the aforesaid appeal, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that upon consideration of the allegations as set out in the FIR and the charge-sheet placed on record by the accused-appellant, there was no prima facie material, whatsoever, available on record to

(7 of 9)

[2026:RJ-JP:20259]

[CRLMP-4717/2022]

substantiate the allegations of cheating or sexual intercourse under a false promise of marriage against the accused appellant. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the allegations levelled in the FIR No.751/2021 dated 29.06.2021, and the impugned FIR challenged before the Apex Court bearing No.103/2022 were at great variance and the inherent contradictions in the two reports over the same subject matter could not be reconciled. Under such circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the firm opinion that allowing prosecution of the accused appellant to continue in the proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR No.103/2022 would be nothing short of a travesty of justice in addition to being a gross abuse of the process of Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the impugned FIR No. 103/2022 is nothing but a bundle of lies, full of fabricated and malicious unsubstantiated allegations levelled by the complainant. According to the Hon’ble Apex Court the facts on record clearly established the vindictive and manipulative tendencies of the complainant and these aspects were found to have a great bearing on the controversy.

¶48

The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that non-disclosure of the allegations in the earlier FIR by the de facto complainant is fatal, and disclosing the same after several months in a subsequent FIR, is nothing but a sheer exaggeration and the same must be discarded. It has been held in para 29, which reads as under:

¶49

“29. It is also relevant to mention here that in FIR No. 751 of 2021, the de-facto complainant has not even made a whisper about the accused appellant dumping her on the ground of her caste. Thus,

(8 of 9)

[2026:RJ-JP:20259]

[CRLMP-4717/2022]

apparently this allegation which has been set out in the subsequent FIR No. 103 of 2022 lodged almost after seven months is nothing but a sheer exaggeration which must be discarded.

¶54

Going by the above mentioned reasoning, the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the non-disclosure of the occurrence in the first FIR No.75/2021 and disclosure of the same in the second FIR No. 103/2021 to be contradictory and fatal to the case of the de facto complainant therein.

¶55

Following the ratio considered in the aforesaid, indisputably non-disclosure of a serious offence within a reasonable time or at the relevant time when an earlier crime was registered against the same accused at the instance of the same de facto complainant, would show falsity of the allegations, making the procedure an abuse of the process of law.

¶56

Having found that the allegations are not trustworthy for the reasons already extracted, it cannot be held that prima facie offences alleged by the prosecution is established, warranting any trial. On the contrary, the entire proceedings are an abuse of the process of the Court.

¶57

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned FIR is nothing, but a bundle of lies full of fabricated and malicious allegations and same amounts to abuse of the process of law. 20. Under these circumstances, the impugned FIR and the proceedings arising out of the same are not sustainable and are liable to be quashed and set aside.

[2026:RJ-JP:20259]

[CRLMP-4717/2022]

(9 of 9)

Accordingly, the instant criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed. The impugned FIR No.24/2022 registered at the Police Station Khatushyamji, District Sikar, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 506 IPC and Section 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act stands quashed and set-aside. As a result thereof, the entire proceedings arising out the same also stands quashed.

¶62

The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶63

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶64

KuD/5

Ajay Kumar Meena Son of Shri Bhanwar Lal, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Meena Son of Shri Bhanwar Lal, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

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

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

Hakimuddin S/O Rehmat Vs the State of Rajasthan