This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 of the BNSS challenged the refusal of lower courts to take cognizance of an offence due to the victim's statement regarding a voluntary marriage. The High Court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2026:RJ-JP:35395]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 794/2025 CNR: RJHC020112002025 | URN: CRLMP / 1877U / 2025
Prakash Son Of Shri Suka, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Outside Gate Of Malsalpur, Chaube Ka Bagh, P.S. Kotwali, Distt. Karauli (Raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anand Sharma for Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
Order
02/09/2026
The present misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 528 of B.N.SS. against the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Karauli (Raj.) whereby the revision petition preferred by the complainant/petitioner was dismissed and order dated 15.02.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli was upheld wherein learned Chief Judicial Magsitrate decline to take cognizance.
[CRLMP-794/2025]
[2026:RJ-JP:35395]
(2 of 3)
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement of the victim, namely Seema, under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., was recorded during the course of investigation on 16.08.2023, wherein she categorically stated that she wanted to reside with Gopal and had already married him. He further submits that despite the aforesaid statement, the learned Trial Court did not take cognizance of the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also submitted that the revision petition preferred against the said order was dismissed by the learned Revisional Court.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition and submitted that, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim had categorically stated that she had gone with Gopal of her own free will. He further submitted that, after considering the material available on record, the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Revisional Court have passed the orders in accordance with law.
Heard. Perused the order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the learned Revisional Court and considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.
Having regard to the facts & circumstances of the case and upon perusal of the orders passed by the learned Courts below, this Court finds that the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference in exercise of the powers under Section 528 of B.NS.S.
[2026:RJ-JP:35395]
[CRLMP-794/2025]
(3 of 3)
Accordingly, the present misc. petition is dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J
22/SAURABH
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Sessions Court's refusal to take cognizance under Section 498 IPC based on the victim's statement of voluntary marriage was perverse.
Whether the Impugned order under Section 528 of BNS passing orders declining to take cognizance suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Prakash Son Of Suka
State Of Rajasthan
Seema
Gopal
Vinod Kumar Bharwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
