Dr. Vijendra Manjhu vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 14690 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1517/2022

Dr. Vijendra Manjhu S/o Moola Ram Manjhu, Aged About 40 Years, B/c Jat R/o 8-A-20 Jai Narayan Vyas Colony Bikaner

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

14/12/2022

By way of filing instant revision petition a challenge has been

made to the order dated 05.11.2022 passed by learned Addl.

Sessions Judge, Sridungargarh Distt. Bikaner in Sessions Case

No.11/2020 whereby, charges were framed against the petitioner

and order of framing charge has been passed under Sections 450,

366 & 376 (2)(N) of the IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a patently

false case has been foisted against the petitioner with the ulterior

object to harass, chastise and extort the petitioner. There is an

inordinate delay in complaining about the matter to the police as it

is the admitted case of prosecution that cause of action had arisen

to the complainant in July, 2016 when she was taken to Jaipur and

in the midway at Ajmer, she was subjected to sexual intercourse.

She is a grown up lady aged 32 years and is a working nursing

staff, therefore, it cannot be said that she could not perceive the

(2 of 3) [CRLR-1517/2022]

consequences of her total submission to the petitioner prior to

getting married. It is further submitted that right from the

inception it was within the knowledge of the prosecutrix that the

petitioner is a married person having two children. Even in her

statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she narrated that

she went with the petitioner along with his wife and children at

Manali where the spouses stayed in a room and she was in

another room. There is ample material to infer that she was all

over a consenting party, agreeable for the willful fornication and

continued the same for a long period of two or three years but

when the relationship became sour due to some domestic issue,

then, with an ulterior object to extort money from the petitioner, a

false case has been instituted; the manner in which the incident

has been alleged to have taken place does not inspire confidence

and no prudent person can ever reach on a conclusion that the

story as narrated by the prosecutrix in her statement and in the

FIR can happen. It is strenuously urged that the prosecutrix knew

the fact that she can not be married with the petitioner because

he was already married, therefore, she can not take the ground

that on account of false promise to marry, she was subjected to

fornication. He further placed reliance on the judgment passed by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prashant Bharti vs. State of NCT

of Delhi (AIR 2013 SC 2753) wherein the same fact situation

was present, where the prosecutrix was knowing the fact that she

could not marry with the accused of that case and even then she

established physical relation with him and the Hon'ble Supreme

Court was pleased to interfere in the matter.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions advanced

by learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3 of 3) [CRLR-1517/2022]

The matter requires consideration.

Issue notice. Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on

behalf of the respondent -State. Thus, notice need not be issued.

In the meanwhile and till next date of hearing, further

proceedings in Session Case No.11/2020 pending before the

learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sridungargarh shall remain stayed.

(FARJAND ALI),J 29-Anshul/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)