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

37 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.