Rajasthan High Court
CRLMP/794/2025 of PRAKASH SON OF SHRI SUKA, Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 2 September 2026
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
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
1.
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2.
Seema W/o Prakash, D/o Ramprasad, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Simir Khoh, P.s. Sapotra, Distt. Karauli, (Raj).
3.
Gopal S/o Prabhu, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Simir Khoh, P.S. Sapotra, Distt. Karauli (Raj).
----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
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
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.
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-794/2025] 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.
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-794/2025] Accordingly, the present misc. petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J 22/SAURABH