SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sanjay Singh Jethi vs State & Anr on 25 May, 2018

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4462 / 2017
Sanjay Singh Jethi S/o Shri Hoshiyar Singh Jethi, R/o Haldwani,
Nanital (Dist.), Uttrakhand. At Present Residing At Dubai


1. State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor.

2. Ms. Poonam Singh D/o Ramdev Mehra, R/o 6 P 541 Kudi
Bhagtasani, Housing Board, Jodhpur (Raj.)

For Petitioner(s) : Ms.Vandana Bhansali.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S.Panwar, P.P.

Mr. Simratha Ram, I.O., present in person.

Date of Judgment: 25/05/2018

Through this miscellaneous petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C, the petitioner Sanjay Singh Jethi has approached this Court

for quashing the FIR No.155/2017 lodged at the Police Station

Mahila Thana, Jodhpur City (West) for the offence under Section

376 IPC.

It may be stated here, at the outset, that on the previous

date of hearing, when the counsel engaged by the respondent

No.2 complainant had appeared in the Court to argue the matter

on her behalf, she was apprised of totally uncalled mails and

letters sent by her to the petitioner’s employer. She categorically

stated that she would be forwarding an apology letter in this

regard. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, no one
(2 of 7)

has appeared on behalf of the complainant and thus, this Court

has proceeded to hear the matter ex-parte.

The FIR mentioned above came to be lodged by the

respondent No.2 before the Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur

Metropolitan with the following allegations:

“I am giving this application for your sincere concerned
about the problem I am facing right right now. I was
studying in standard 11th in 2007 with my colleague Sanjay
Singh Jethi. We were in same class and in same stream.
Sanjay made physical relation with me in 11 th Standard by
the name of true love. As I was not aware about any thinks
he made a CD of ours. On the basis of that CD he was
making physical relation with me again and again. After
completion of 12th Standard, he moved to Kurukshetra for
hotel management. We were in touch through calls. Later, in
2012 he moved to Dubai. He then met me on 2016 Oct., at
Jaipur and promised me to get married. In 2017, he met me
in a married function of his friend and proposed for
marriage. I accepted that and rejected all the proposed.
Given by my family. He then said that his family is ready for
our marriage proposed and on a particular inlervel he met
me in Jaipur and UP. On 8th July, 2017, he decide for
marriage and blocked me from every where. We have
already sent him notice for the same but still, I did not get
any response from him. I am mentally very disturbed so
please suggest and help me in best possible way. I want to
marry him and want to get settled down.”

Learned counsel Ms. Vandana Bhansali representing the

petitioner vehemently urged that ex-facie, the allegations levelled

in the FIR are false and fabricated. The petitioner had for some

time been in contact with the respondent No.2 way back in the

year 2007 when both were students of XIth standard at Kendriya

Vidhyalaya, Jodhpur. Thereafter, the petitioner moved on in his life

and has achieved significant position and is presently having a

lucrative job in Dubai. The complainant came to know of these

facts from social media contact and thereafter, tried to misuse her

casual contact with the petitioner and is virtually extorting and
(3 of 7)

pressuring him to marry her, even though, there existed no such

consensus between the petitioner and the complainant. The

petitioner has never visited Jodhpur since the year 2007. She

urged that even if the complainant’s conjectural and cooked up

allegations as mentioned in the FIR are admitted to be true on the

face of the record, admittedly the initial sexual relations between

her and the petitioner were established with consent way back in

the year 2007 when both were school students. The petitioner

moved on to Kurukshetra after completing his schooling and did a

course of hotel management. In the year 2012, he proceeded to

Dubai. The complainant claims that the petitioner met her in the

year 2016 at Jaipur and promised that he would marry her. Then,

both met in a marriage function of the petitioner’s friend where,

the petitioner allegedly proposed the complainant who accepted

the proposal and turned down the offers received by her family.

Both allegedly met at frequent intervals in Jaipur and U.P.

However, on 08.07.2017, the petitioner allegedly blocked and

repelled all attempts of contact by the complainant. The

complainant allegedly became mentally disturbed upon failing to

get response from the accused and sent him a notice stating that

she desired to marry him. As per Ms. Bhansali, even in the highly

dubitable allegations made in the FIR, there is no aspersion

whatsoever that the petitioner ever established physical relations

with the complainant after the year 2007. She urged that as a

matter of fact, the complainant is trying to extort and blackmail

the petitioner into marrying her. For this purpose, she initially got

issued a notice to the petitioner through her advocate on
(4 of 7)

21.08.2017 and then, she filed the present FIR. She drew the

Court’s attention to the statement of the complainant recorded

under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein, she improved the allegation set

out in the FIR and alleged that the petitioner met her on few

occasions at Jodhpur between the year 2008 and 2012 and then,

he went away to Dubai for pursuing his job. Thereafter, the

petitioner met the complainant in person in October, 2012 at

Jaipur where, he came to Jaipur to attend a friend’s wedding. She

stated that the petitioner established physical relations with her in

the Hotel City Palace, Jaipur. In February, 2016, the petitioner

again met her at Delhi where, he gave a proposal of marriage to

the complainant. However, as per the complainant, on

08.08.2017, the petitioner communicated his refusal to marry her

on the pretext that she was from Scheduled Caste background. As

per Ms. Bhansali, crux of the allegations levelled by the

complainant portrays that she is infatuated with the petitioner and

desperate to marry him because of his status and nothing else.

She contended that the petitioner never gave any fraudulent

promise of marriage to the complainant and that physical

relations, if any, were established with the desire and active

consent of the complainant. She also drew the Court’s attention to

the following paragraphs of the notice issued by the complainant’s

counsel to the petitioner’s employer:

“In am writing this letter to you for your kind consideration
in this serious matter. It is a sensitive issue; it is question of
someone’s dignity, prestige and respect. Your are living in a
country where rape is equal to someone’s death. Punishment
of rape is bigger than anyone’s life and even he has raped a
girl who is minority by group which we called as a Schedule

(5 of 7)

Sanjay Singh Jethi, he is culprit, rapist and criminal That’s
why he ran from India immediately and enjoying life as usual
and normally but the girl is facing lots of problems and
criticism, her life become more difficult. I am requesting you
to take a strict action against the criminal; your action can
help and motivate girls to fight for their justice. I am
expecting your positive response. For more communication, I
am giving my contact number and email address. Feel free
to contact anytime and FIR copy, bail rejection letter in
session court and other court order’s attached herewith.”

and urged that the words used therein clearly gave an indication

regarding the attempt to somehow or the other malign and

pressurise the petitioner to concede to the attempted blackmail of

the complainant. On these grounds, she prayed that the impugned

FIR deserves to be quashed.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the I.O.,

has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the

petitioner’s counsel and urged that ex-facie, there is ample

material on record to show that the petitioner gave a fraudulent

assurance of marriage to the complainant and gained sexual

favours from her under this pretext. Thereafter, he bluntly refused

to standby his promise and is thus guilty of the offence of rape. He

thus urged that the instant misc. petition should be rejected.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments

advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on

record as well as the case diary.

The respondent No.2 is a 26 years old highly qualified

woman and can be presumed to be aware about consequences of

her own acts. She claimed in the FIR that the initial sexual

relationship between her and the petitioner was established in the

year 2007. At that time, both were school students. Manifestly,
(6 of 7)

there is no allegation in the complainant’s version regarding those

sexual relations having been established by use of force or without

her consent. Admittedly, the petitioner went away from Jodhpur in

the year 2008 and proceeded to Dubai after doing the course of

Hotel Management. It appears that the complainant who appears

to be infatetated with the petitioner, could not get over the

obsession of having a relationship with the petitioner and that is

why, she continued to pursue him. It is she who voluntarily went

to Jaipur to meet the petitioner in the year 2016. As per her

statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she stayed with the

petitioner in the Hotel City Palace and there, physical relations

were established between them. Though it is claimed by the

complainant that these physical relations were against her consent

but ex-facie, the said allegation appears to be totally fictitious and

concocted. The petitioner, has all along maintained that he never

gave any assurance or proposal of marriage to the complainant.

Thus, the theory of proposal of marriage appears to be purely a

creation of the complainant herself and is manifestly a pretext to

coerce the petitioner into marrying her at any cost. The legal

notice sent by the complainant’s counsel to the petitioner before

lodging of the FIR also concludes with a demand that the

petitioner should marry the complainant within a period of 10 days

of receiving the notice so that the complainant can get rid of her

emotional woes. Even in the FIR, the complainant has prayed that

she wants to marry the petitioner and get settled down. Manifestly

thus, the complainant who appears to be enamoured by the

petitioner and his status in the society and has used the present
(7 of 7)

prosecution to somehow or the other to attain her goal of

marrying him. After perusing and appreciating the allegations

levelled in the impugned FIR and the surrounding circumstances,

this Court is of the firm opinion that the same does not disclose

the necessary ingredients of the offence alleged. The registration

of impugned FIR is nothing but a misuse of criminal process

launched with the sole aim of coercing the petitioner to marry the


In view of the discussion made herein above, the instant

misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned

FIR No.155/2017 lodged at the Police Station Mahila Thana,

Jodhpur City (West) and all proceedings sought to be taken in

furtherance thereof are hereby quashed.


tikam daiya/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh