Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Teekam Sharma S/O Rajendra vs State Of Rajasthan on 21 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:27946]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2636/2021
URN: CRLMP / 4837U / 2021
1. Teekam Sharma S/o Rajendra, R/o Village Sarthal P.S.
Sarthal Dist. Baran Raj.
2. Monu Jangid S/o Sh. Chotulal, R/o Village Sarthal P.S.
Sarthal Dist. Baran Raj.
3. Anil Choudhary S/o Sh. Shivraj, R/o Village Sarthal P.S
Sarthal Dist. Baran Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Victim, R/o
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sajid Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Dhakar-PP
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
21/07/2026
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
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.
(Uploaded on 27/07/2026 at 11:32:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 27/07/2026 at 10:50:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27946] (2 of 10) [CRLMP-2636/2021]
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. 158/2020,
registered with the Police Station Sarthal, District Baran for the
offences punishable under Sections 366, 376, 406 and 120-B IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
prosecutrix is a major lady, and she was in relationship with the
petitioner No.1. It is further submitted that on 26.06.2020 she
eloped with the petitioner at her own free will and executed a
document for performing their marriage. Counsel further submits
that father of the prosecutrix has lodged a Missing Person Report
No.4/2020 on 27.06.2020 with the Police Station Sarthal, Baran
and during investigation of the aforesaid MPR, the prosecutrix “M”
was recovered and thereafter, her statements were recorded on
29.06.2020 wherein she has not levelled any allegations against
the petitioner No.1 rather she has stated that she had gone to her
relative on motor-bike with someone and returned back and
expressed her desired to reside with her parents. Counsel submits
that some time thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 -Teekam Sharma
submitted an application under Section 97 Cr.P.C. before the Court
of Sub-Divisonal Magistrate, Cheepabarod, District Baran stating
therein that the prosecutrix is his wife and her parents have
illegaly detained her in a room and are torturing her, therefore a
warrant be issued for her recovery. Counsel submits that the
aforesaid application was submitted on 11.08.2020 and in
(Uploaded on 27/07/2026 at 11:32:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 27/07/2026 at 10:50:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27946] (3 of 10) [CRLMP-2636/2021]
pursuance of the aforesaid application, notices were issued and
she appeared before the Court of SDM wherein she expressed her
desire to reside with her parents. Counsel submits that in counter-
blast to the proceedings initiated by the petitioner-Teekam
Sharma, now after a lapse of more than two months, a complaint
was filed by the prosecutrix under the pressure of her parents with
false allegations that he not only abducted her but has also
committed rape upon her and the other petitioner Nos.2 and 3
helped the petitioner No. 1 in doing so. Counsel submits that the
allegations levelled against the petitioner are after thoughts as no
such allegations were levelled by the prosecutrix at the first
instance when her statements were recorded on 29.06.2020
during the MPR proceedings. Hence, interference of this Court is
warranted.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners and submitted
that after investigation, a prima facie case found to be proved
against all the petitioners. Hence, interference of this Court is not
warranted and the instant petition is liable to be rejected.
6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and
perused the material available on record.
7. Perusal of the impugned FIR indicates that for the alleged
incident of rape committed upon the prosecutrix on 26.06.2020, a
criminal complaint was filed by her before the Court of Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chipabarod, Baran on 03.09.2020 and
the same was sent for further investigation under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. to the Police Station Sarthal, Baran where upon the
impugned FIR No. 158/2020 was registered for the offences
(Uploaded on 27/07/2026 at 11:32:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 27/07/2026 at 10:50:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27946] (4 of 10) [CRLMP-2636/2021]
punishable under Sections 366, 376, 406 and 120-B IPC. In the
aforesaid complaint, it has been alleged that the petitioner No. 1
arrived on the spot and with the aid of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3,
he abducted her and thereafter, he committed rape upon her.
8. It is worthy to note here that the alleged incident has
occurred on 26.06.2020 and immediately, on the next day of the
aforesaid incident, MPR No. 4/2020 was registered at the instance
of the father of the prosecutrix with the same police station i.e.
Sarthal, District Baran. During the course of investigation of the
aforesaid MPR, the prosecutrix was recovered and produced before
the Court of SDM wherein her statements were recorded on
29.06.2020 and the same are reproduced as under:-
**c;ku lqJh feuk{kh jkBkSM iq=h Jh lqjsUæÇlg jkBkSM tkfr jktiwr mez 21
lky fuoklh lkjFky iqfyl Fkkuk lkjFky ftyk ckjka cflyflys
tkap ,eihvkj ua0 04@20 iqfyl Fkkuk lkjFky ftyk ckjka fnukad 29-06-2020
us nj;kIr ij c;ku fd;k fd eSa lkjFky dh jgus okyh gw¡A esjs ls NksVk ,d
Hkkà gS ftldk uke jksfgr gSA vHkh eSa ,e-,- çFke o”kZ esa vè;;ujr gw¡A eSa esjs
eEeh ikik ds lkFk gh jgrh gwA eSa vHkh vkxs vkSj i<kà djuk pkgrh gw
ysfdu esjs ikik esjh vkxs i<kà u djkà tk djds esjh ‘kknh dj nsuk pkgrs
gS ysfdu esa vHkh vkSj i<kà djuk pkgrh gw esjs euk djus ds ckctwn Hkh esjs
firkth esjh ‘kknh djuk pkgrs gS blh ckr ls xqLlk gksdj fnukad 26-06-2020
dh jkf= le; djhc 1-30 ,,e ij tc lHkh ?kj okys lks jgs Fks rks eS ekSdk
ikdj fcuk crk;s ?kj ls vdsyh pyh xà tgk¡ lkjFky cl LVS.M ij eq>s ,d
eksVjlkÃfdy okyk feyk ftldk uke irk eSa ugh tkurh mlus eq>s vdysjk
NksM fn;k fQj lqcg vdysjk ls dksVk tkus okyh cl ls eSa esjs cMs ikik
HkS#Çlg tks dksVk esa jgrs gSa muds ikl pyh xà muds ;gk¡ ij vDlj vkrh
tkrh jgrh gw ml fnu Hkh eSa esjs cMs ikik HkS#Çlg ds ;gk¡ ij pyh xÃA ?kj
ls es esjs iguus ds diMs o dqN iSls fdjk;s HkkMk ds fy;s ysdj xà FkhA(Uploaded on 27/07/2026 at 11:32:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 27/07/2026 at 10:50:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27946] (5 of 10) [CRLMP-2636/2021]vkt fnukad 29-06-2020 dks lqcg 4 cts ds vkl ikl eq>s iqfyl us esjs cMs
ikik ds ;gk¡ ij ryk’k fd;k tgk¡ mUgs ekStwn feyh ftUgksus us eq>s crk;k fd
rqEgkjh rks xqe’kqnxh dh fjiksVZ ntZ gS rc esa iqfyl okys o esjs ifjtuks ds
lkFk Fkkuk ij vkÃA eS esjh LosPNk ls gh ?kj ls fcuk crk;s xbZ FkhA**
9. It is also worthy to mention here that when the prosecutrix
was recovered by the police, immediately after the incident, she
has categorically stated in her first version that her parents
wanted to get her married forcibly and she wanted to study,
hence, in the rage of anger, she herself in the night at about
12:30 P.M. left her home alone and gone to the bus stand, where
she met one person with whom she travelled to Aklera from where
the police has recovered her and produced her before the Court of
SDM, where her statements were recorded, wherein she
expressed her desire to reside with her parents.
10. It is the case of the petitioner No. 1 that both the prosecutrix
and the petitioner had solemnized their marriage.
11. Be that as it may, the petitioner No. 1 submitted an
application under Section 97 Cr.P.C. for issuing a search warrant to
recover the prosecutrix, as he was under the impression that she
has been illegally detained by her parents against her wishes and
accordingly, a search warrant was issued by the Court of SDM,
Chhipabarod, Baran in whose compliance she was produced before
the Court wherein thereafter, she had expressed her desire to
reside with her parents and now, after a lapse of more than two
months, a complaint has been lodged by the prosecutrix against
the petitioners with the allegation of her abduction and
committing rape upon her and no plausible explanation has been
given by the prosecutrx in this complaint and that is why she has
(Uploaded on 27/07/2026 at 11:32:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 27/07/2026 at 10:50:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27946] (6 of 10) [CRLMP-2636/2021]not narrated the true story when the MPR was registered and
when her first version of statements were recorded on
29.06.2020. Such act and conduct on the part of the prosecutrix
create doubt on the truthfulness of the allegations levelled by her
against the petitioner, as no FIR was registered till 03.09.2020.
12. In this connection, 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 while
deciding Criminal Appeal No.2879/2025 vide order dated
29.05.2025, 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 on accused him 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.
13. 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
(Uploaded on 27/07/2026 at 11:32:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 27/07/2026 at 10:50:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27946] (7 of 10) [CRLMP-2636/2021]and the charge-sheet placed on record by the accused-appellant,
there was no prima facie material whatsoever available on record
to 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 Hon’ble 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 sort of a travesty of justice in
addition to being a gross abuse of process of law. 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
vindictive and manipulative tendencies of the complainant and
these aspects were found to have a great bearing on the
controversy.
14. 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 as follows:
(Uploaded on 27/07/2026 at 11:32:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 27/07/2026 at 10:50:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27946] (8 of 10) [CRLMP-2636/2021]“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,
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.
15. 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 as an
abuse of law.
16. Having found that the allegations are not trustworthy for the
reasons already extracted above it could not be held that prima
facie offences alleged by the prosecution are established,
warranting any trial. On the contrary, the entire proceedings are
abuse of the process of the Court.
17. In the present matter, when the MPR was registered and
thereafter when the statements of prosecutrix were taken on
record, there were no allegations levelled against the petitioners
and it was only after the lapse of more than two months, the
impugned FIR was registered against the petitioners. Hence, the
instant case falls within the parameters, as defined by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs.
Bhajan Lal and Ors reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, which
reads as under:-
(Uploaded on 27/07/2026 at 11:32:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 27/07/2026 at 10:50:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27946] (9 of 10) [CRLMP-2636/2021]“(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investi-
gation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the
Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support
of the same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code;
(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
18. The case of the petitioners falls within the
parameters/principles, as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court,
and the instant criminal proceedings have been maliciously
initiated against the petitioners with mala fide intention and
ulterior motive.
(Uploaded on 27/07/2026 at 11:32:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 27/07/2026 at 10:50:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27946] (10 of 10) [CRLMP-2636/2021]
19. Having considered the entirety of the facts and
circumstances available on the record, this Court is of the opinion
that the impugned FIR No.158/2020 is nothing but a bundle of lies
full of fabricated and malicious allegations and under the changed
circumstances, when the petitioners were not found guilty in the
impugned FIR No.158/2020 by the Investigating Officer, it would
be absurd to allow the prosecution of the petitioner to continue by
considering the aforesaid. These facts on record clearly establish
the vindictive and manipulative tendency of the complainant and
these aspects have a great bearing on the controversy involved
therein.
20. Hence, under such circumstances, the instant criminal misc.
petition deserves to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed.
The impugned FIR No. 158/2020, registered at the Police Station
Sarthal, District Baran, for the offences punishable under Sections
366, 376, 406 and 120-B stands quashed and set-aside. As a
result thereof, the entire proceedings arising out of the same also
stand quashed.
21. The stay application and all pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Ashu/6
(Uploaded on 27/07/2026 at 11:32:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 27/07/2026 at 10:50:56 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
