Sachin Mishra S/O Vijay @ Bhurya ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 6333 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2820/2020

Sachin Mishra S/o Vijay @ Bhurya Mishra, R/o Sikray Tehsil
Sikray Dist. Dausa, Raj.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.      Rambhajan S/o Hukum Chand, R/o Bairwa Mohalla,
        Sikray Ps Manpur, Dist. Dausa, Raj.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Chand Thakuriya For State : Mr. Rajendra Yadav, G.A.-cum-AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

10/11/2021

1. Petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R.

2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that a false case

has been registered against the petitioner. As per the charge-

sheet and evidence of the school teacher, on the alleged date i.e.

on 20.02.2019, victim was at school and there arises no question

of her being taken away by the petitioner. It is also contended that

in the F.I.R., date of incident is mentioned as 24.04.2019, whereas

in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., prosecutrix

has mentioned date of incident as 20.02.2019. It is further

contended that in a criminal case filed against the relative of the

victim, the accused was convicted and it is only to counterblast

that the present F.I.R. was lodged.

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-2820/2020]

3. Learned Government Advocate cum Additional Advocate

General has opposed the criminal misc. petition. It is contended

that the F.I.R. discloses commission of cognizable offence. Victim

is a child, aged sixteen years, who in her statement recorded

under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has narrated the incident. It is also

contended that police after investigation has submitted the

charge-sheet and this Court at this stage cannot deal with the

evidence which are on record, more particularly with the

statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

4. I have considered the contentions.

5. The date of incident mentioned in the F.I.R. 24.04.2019 does

not match with the statement of the victim recorded under Section

161 Cr.P.C., wherein she has mentioned date of incident as

20.02.2019. In the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

also she has mentioned that on 20.02.2019, she was taken away

and was raped by the petitioner at his house. Police has also

submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner. This Court is not

inclined to entertain the case, more particularly when prosecutrix

in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has levelled

allegation with regard to rape against the present petitioner.

Hence, no ground is made out for entertaining the criminal misc.

petition.

6. Accordingly, Criminal Misc. Petition is dismissed. Stay

application also stands disposed.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

ARTI SHARMA /27

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)