High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 08 RAJ CK 0053

Rahul Rao S/o Shri Bherulal Rao vs State Of Rajasthan

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 23 August 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sabina
CASE NUMBER
3020 of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 341 words
1.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the First Information Report No. 683/2016 registered at Police Station Kekri for offence under Section 354D of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 67 of Information Techonolodgy Act, 2008.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been falsely involved in this case as he was asking the respondent No.2 to perform marriage with him after their engagement.

3.

FIR in the present case was lodged by respondent No.2.

Statement of respondent No.2 was recorded under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is the case of respondent No.2 that she had performed court marriage at Ajmer with Nishant. However, some dispute arose between them and they started residing separately. Now presently she was residing alone at Jaipur and was taking dance classes. Her parents were fond of the petitioner. As a result, she got to know the petitioner. In February/March, 2016 when she had gone to her house at Kekri, she had left her mobile phone for charging. When she went to the wash room, petitioner removed the memory card from the phone and copied it and started messaging her that he liked her and wanted to perform marriage with her. She refused to perform marriage with the petitioner. Petitioner instigated her parents and as a result, her parents got her engaged to the petitioner. When later she refused to perform marriage with the petitioner, he created her forged face book account and wrote that she was a call girl and was used to developing sexual relations. Her phone number was also displayed on the face book. As a result, she started receiving calls from different persons inquiring about her rate.

4.

Learned State counsel has submitted that after investigation of the case, it has been found that the petitioner has committed the alleged offence.

5.

Keeping in view the nature of alligations levelled against petitioner, no ground for quashing of the FIR in qustion is made out.

Dismissed.