Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Paras Dewasi vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:24551) on 20 May, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:24551]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3043/2025
Paras Dewasi S/o Laxman Ji, Aged About 22 Years, Raniwara,
Jalore, Distt. Jalore, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pritam Solanki.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sriram Choudhary, PP.
Mr. Sudhir Saruparia.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
20/05/2025
1. The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of
BNSS has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR
No.10/2025 registered at Police Station Barloot, District Sirohi for
the offences under Sections 64(1), 65(1) and 69 of BNS; Sections
3, 4, 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and
3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
statements of the victim, aged about 18 years, and her elder
sister 'N' have already been recorded before the competent
criminal court as PW-2 and PW-3 respectively. The victim (PW-2)
and PW-3, during their court statements, have not supported the
prosecution story and have turned hostile.
3. Learned counsel submitted that since the victim and other
material prosecution witness, during their court statements, have
not supported the prosecution story, the chances of the petitioner
getting convicting in the present case are very bleak. He further
submitted that the victim and the petitioner, during pendency of
[2025:RJ-JD:24551] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3043/2025]
the present case, have resolved their disputes amicably and the
victim does not want to continue with the present litigation against
the petitioner, who is aged about 22 years.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the victim and the
respondent No.2 concurs the factum of compromise and submits
that in view of the compromise, the complainant and the victim
are not inclined to prosecute the petitioner any further.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the
impugned FIR is not quashed, the petitioner, who is aged about 22
years, may have to face incarceration. He submitted that though
in cases concerning sexual act with a minor, consent, if any, has
no legal sanctity and it cannot be used as a defence but in view of
the fact that the petitioner and the complainant, who is an
adolescent girl of tender age, have fallen in love with each other
and the victim, in her statements recorded under various sections
of the Cr.P.C., had admitted the factum of being in the company of
the petitioner for few days out of her free will and volition, then
this Court should not close its eyes from the hard reality that their
love affair has travelled beyond the legal and moral grounds and
therefore, if the impugned FIR is quashed then it would serve the
ends of justice.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his
contentions, has placed reliance on the following judgments:
(i) Vijayalakshmi & Anr. Vs. State & Anr. (Crl.M.P.
No.109/2021), decided on 27.01.2021 by Hon'ble High Court
of Madras;
(ii) Kundan & Anr. Vs. State & Ors. (Crl.M.C. No.27/2022),
decided on 21.02.2022 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi;
[2025:RJ-JD:24551] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3043/2025]
(iii) Shri Skhemborland Suting & Anr. Vs. State of Meghalya
and Anr. (Crl. Petition No.63/2021), decided on 23.03.2022
by Hon'ble High Court of Meghalya; and
(iv) Tarun Vaishnav vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Cr.
Misc. Petition No.6323/2022) decided on 13.10.2022 by
Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case
particularly, keeping in view of the fact that admittedly, when the
alleged incident occurred, the petitioner and the victim were of
tender age; the victim in her statements recorded under various
sections of Cr.P.C./BNSS, had taken a stand that she remained in
the company of the petitioner for few days out of her own free will
and volition; the girl and her family members are now neither
aggrieved by the action of the petitioner nor intend to continue
prosecution against him, this Court deems it just and proper to
invoke inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS
and quash the impugned FIR not only on the basis of compromise
but also for the reason mentioned herein above and what has
transpired during the course of hearing.
8. Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed. The FIR
No.10/2025 registered at Police Station Barloot, District Sirohi for
the offences under Sections 64(1), 65(1) and 69 of BNS; Sections
3, 4, 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and
3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act and all subsequent proceedings sought
to be taken thereunder against the petitioner, are quashed.
9. Stay application stands disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
107-Tikam/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
