MANISHA vs STATE AND ORS.
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
[2026:RJ-JD:26965]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2195/2014
Manisha Jain wife of Shri Sumit Jain R/o Near SBBJ Bank,
Industrial Area, Rani Bazar, Bikaner
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan
2. Nawla Ram S/o Bhagwana Ram R/o 4, Karni Nagar, Pavan
Puri, Bikaner
3. Dr. Manohar Lal S/o Nawla Ram R/o 4, Karni Nagar, Pavan
Puri, Bikaner
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2330/2014
1. Nawla Ram S/o Bhagwana Ram presently posted as Manager,
SBBJ, Reional Officer, Bikaner
3. Dr. Manohar Lal S/o Nawla Ram Presently posted as Assistant
Professor, Medical Collage, Biakner Both R/o 4, Karni Nagar,
Pavan Puri, Bikaner
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan
2. Manisha Jain W/o Sumit Jain R/o Near SBBJ Bank, Industrial
Area, Rani Bazar, Bikaner
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, PP
Mr. J.S. Choudhary Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
Ms. Sampati Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
REPORTABLE
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS 19/05/2026
DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED 19/05/2026
FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART Full Order
(Uploaded on 12/06/2026 at 12:34:58 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:39 AM)
(2 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:26965] [CRLMP-2195/2014]
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10/05/2026
BY THE COURT:-
1. The instant miscellaneous petitions arise out of a common
set of facts and challenge the orders dated 28.05.2011 and
09.09.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bikaner in FR No.60/2007 and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge
(Women Atrocities Cases), Bikaner in Criminal Appeal No.3/2013
respectively. Since both the petitions emanate from the same
criminal proceedings and involve identical questions of fact and
law, they are being decided by this common order.
2. Briefly stated, an FIR came to be registered at Police Station
Kotgate, Bikaner for the offences punishable under Sections 366,
376 and 384 IPC by complainant Manisha Jain. Upon completion
of investigation, the police submitted a negative Final Report
concluding that no case was made out against the accused
persons. Dissatisfied with the outcome of the investigation, the
complainant filed a protest petition. The learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, vide its order dated 28.05.2011, disagreed with the
negative Final Report, took cognizance of the offences under
Sections 366, 376 and 384 IPC and issued process against the
accused persons through warrants of arrest.
2.1. Aggrieved thereby, the accused persons preferred an appeal
before the the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities
Cases), Bikaner, who vide order dated 09.09.2014, while
maintaining the order taking cognizance, partly allowed the
revision by modifying the nature of process issued against the
(Uploaded on 12/06/2026 at 12:34:58 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:39 AM)
(3 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:26965] [CRLMP-2195/2014]
accused and directed their appearance through bailable warrants
instead of warrants of arrest. Hence the instant misc.petitions.
3. Assailing the aforesaid orders, learned counsel appearing for
the accused persons contended that the learned Magistrate acted
illegally in discarding the negative Final Report without recording
any cogent reason for disagreeing with the conclusions arrived at
by the Investigating Officer. It was urged that the material
collected during investigation, the statements of witnesses and the
circumstances which weighed with the Investigating Agency were
completely ignored and cognizance was taken solely on the basis
of the allegations reiterated in the protest petition. It was,
therefore, submitted that the impugned orders suffer from non-
application of mind and deserve to be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant
supported the order taking cognizance and contended that the
learned Magistrate was fully competent to disagree with the
opinion expressed by the Investigating Officer and to
independently assess the material available on record. It was
submitted that sufficient grounds existed for proceeding against
the accused persons and, therefore, the order taking cognizance
did not warrant interference. The complainant further questioned
the propriety of the revisional order to the extent it interfered with
the process issued by the learned Magistrate.
5. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Court,
the complainant expired. Admittedly, no application seeking
substitution by her legal representatives has been filed.
(Uploaded on 12/06/2026 at 12:34:58 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:39 AM)
(4 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:26965] [CRLMP-2195/2014]
Nevertheless, since the challenge laid by the accused persons
survives for adjudication and both petitions arise out of the same
proceedings, this Court proceeds to examine the legality,
correctness and propriety of the impugned orders.
6. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival
submissions advanced at the Bar and have meticulously perused
the impugned orders, the negative Final Report submitted by the
Investigating Agency, the protest petition, the material collected
during investigation and the entire record of the proceedings.
6.1. At the outset, it deserves to be noticed that the controversy
involved in the present matter lies within a narrow compass. The
pivotal question which arises for determination is as to whether,
while disagreeing with the negative Final Report submitted by the
Investigating Officer, the learned Magistrate has recorded
adequate and legally sustainable reasons reflecting conscious
application of mind to the material collected during investigation.
The answer to the aforesaid question, in the considered opinion of
this Court, has to be rendered in the negative.
6.2. It is trite that a Magistrate is not bound by the conclusion
drawn by the Investigating Officer and possesses ample
jurisdiction to take cognizance notwithstanding submission of a
negative Final Report. Equally well settled, however, is the
principle that where a Magistrate chooses to depart from the
conclusion reached by the Investigating Agency, the order must
disclose due and meaningful consideration of the material
collected during investigation and must contain reasons indicating
(Uploaded on 12/06/2026 at 12:34:58 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:39 AM)
(5 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:26965] [CRLMP-2195/2014]
as to why the conclusions recorded by the Investigating Officer are
unacceptable. Judicial discretion, howsoever wide, cannot be
exercised in an unstructured or mechanical manner. The order
must manifest a process of reasoning and not merely the ultimate
conclusion.
7. A careful reading of the impugned order dated 28.05.2011
reveals that the learned Magistrate has principally relied upon the
averments contained in the protest petition and the statements of
the complainant and her parents. The order does not reflect any
meaningful consideration of the extensive investigation
undertaken by the police. Nor does it reveal any conscious
examination of the circumstances which persuaded the
Investigating Officer to submit a negative Final Report. The
reasons recorded in the Final Report have neither been discussed
nor dealt with. The learned Magistrate has not indicated as to
which finding of the Investigating Officer was erroneous, perverse,
unsupported by record or otherwise unacceptable in law.
7.1. The record demonstrates that the Investigating Agency had
undertaken a detailed inquiry and had examined various factual
aspects of the matter before arriving at the conclusion that no
case warranting prosecution was made out. The negative Final
Report was not a cryptic document containing bald conclusions.
On the contrary, it was founded upon material collected during
investigation and was supported by reasons. Once such material
was available before the Court, it was incumbent upon the learned
Magistrate to advert thereto and record reasons for differing with
(Uploaded on 12/06/2026 at 12:34:58 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:39 AM)
(6 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:26965] [CRLMP-2195/2014]
the same. Unfortunately, the impugned order is conspicuously
silent on this aspect.
7.2. The Court is unable to persuade itself to accept that mere
reiteration of allegations contained in the protest petition could, by
itself, furnish a valid substitute for judicial consideration of the
investigation record. A protest petition undoubtedly provides an
avenue to the informant to question the correctness of the
investigation. Nevertheless, the filing of a protest petition does not
eclipse the investigation conducted by the police, nor does it
relieve the Court of its obligation to evaluate the material collected
during such investigation. The judicial exercise required in such
circumstances is one of comparative evaluation and reasoned
disagreement. The learned Magistrate, however, appears to have
accepted the protest petition version in its entirety while virtually
ignoring the investigation record.
7.3. What is particularly striking is the absence of any discussion
regarding the circumstances and evidence which weighed with the
Investigating Officer while recommending closure of the case. The
order of cognizance does not analyse the evidence collected
during investigation; it does not indicate why the Investigating
Officer's conclusions were untenable; nor does it assign any
reason demonstrating that the material on record prima facie
established commission of offences under Sections 366, 376 and
384 IPC notwithstanding the contrary opinion formed during
investigation. Such an approach, in the considered view of this
(Uploaded on 12/06/2026 at 12:34:58 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:39 AM)
(7 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:26965] [CRLMP-2195/2014]
Court, falls short of the standards expected from a judicial order
which seeks to overturn the outcome of a completed investigation.
7.4. The requirement of recording reasons is not an empty
formality. Reasons constitute the heartbeat of a judicial order.
They assure the parties that their contentions have received due
consideration, facilitate effective appellate or supervisory review
and ensure transparency in the decision-making process. An order
bereft of reasons or one which ignores material evidence cannot
be sustained merely because the Court possesses jurisdiction to
pass such an order. Jurisdiction and its lawful exercise are distinct
concepts. While the Magistrate undoubtedly possessed jurisdiction
to disagree with the Final Report, the exercise of such jurisdiction
was required to be supported by cogent reasons, which are
conspicuously absent in the present case.
7.5. This Court further finds that the appellate court, while
modifying the nature of process issued against the accused
persons, did not examine the legality and propriety of the
foundational order taking cognizance from the perspective
discussed hereinabove. Since the very basis of the criminal
proceedings, namely the order taking cognizance, suffers from a
manifest infirmity, the consequential revisional order cannot
survive independently.
7.6. Another aspect which cannot be lost sight of is that during
the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, the
complainant expired and no application seeking substitution by
any legal representative was ever moved. Consequently, the
(Uploaded on 12/06/2026 at 12:34:58 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:39 AM)
(8 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:26965] [CRLMP-2195/2014]
petition instituted at the instance of the complainant remained
unprosecuted and no effective challenge survives on that behalf.
7.7 . A perusal of the negative Final Report further reveals certain
attendant circumstances of considerable significance which, in the
considered opinion of this Court, lend substantial assurance to the
conclusions arrived at by the Investigating Officer. The material
collected during investigation discloses that the complainant and
the accused were not strangers to each other and had remained
acquainted for a considerable period prior to the lodging of the
FIR. The investigation further indicates that the complainant
continued to remain in the company of the accused for an
extended duration and accompanied him on several occasions
under circumstances which, prima facie, do not suggest the
existence of any immediate threat, compulsion, coercion or
physical restraint.
7.8. The Investigating Agency has also noticed that during the
period in question, the complainant had access to numerous
opportunities to communicate her alleged predicament to her
family members, acquaintances or public authorities. She is stated
to have visited public places, interacted with different persons and
remained in an environment where assistance could readily have
been sought. Notwithstanding the availability of such
opportunities, there is no material indicating that she ever raised
any protest, sought intervention from any quarter or disclosed the
alleged offences to any person contemporaneously. Such
prolonged and unqualified silence was viewed by the Investigating
(Uploaded on 12/06/2026 at 12:34:58 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:39 AM)
(9 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:26965] [CRLMP-2195/2014]
Officer as a circumstance fundamentally inconsistent with the
allegations subsequently levelled in the FIR.
7.9. The investigation further brought to light the nature and
tenor of the relationship subsisting between the parties. The
surrounding circumstances, as reflected from the statements
recorded during investigation and other material collected by the
police, portray a relationship marked by continuity of association
and voluntary companionship rather than one characterized by
force, intimidation or deceit. The conduct attributed to the
complainant, both antecedent and subsequent to the alleged
occurrence, was found by the Investigating Officer to be
incongruous with the ordinary and natural behaviour expected of a
person claiming to have been subjected to the grave offences
alleged in the FIR.
7.10.What particularly weighed with the Investigating Agency was
the unexplained delay and sustained reticence on the part of the
complainant in setting the criminal law into motion. The record
does not disclose any compelling circumstance which prevented
her from approaching the authorities at the earliest available
opportunity. The absence of any contemporaneous complaint,
coupled with her continued association with the accused over a
considerable period, constituted a formidable circumstance which
cast a serious doubt upon the intrinsic reliability of the prosecution
version.
7.11.The aforesaid circumstances, when viewed cumulatively and
in conjunction with the surrounding factual matrix, persuaded the
(Uploaded on 12/06/2026 at 12:34:58 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:39 AM)
(10 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:26965] [CRLMP-2195/2014]
Investigating Officer to conclude that the allegations did not
inspire confidence and were beset with inherent improbabilities.
This Court finds that the reasoning assigned in the negative Final
Report is neither arbitrary nor speculative; rather, it is founded
upon objective circumstances emerging from the investigation and
a rational appreciation of human conduct and attendant
probabilities. The factual features noticed by the Investigating
Officer strike at the very substratum of the prosecution case and,
in the considered opinion of this Court, deserved serious judicial
consideration before a contrary view was adopted. The failure of
the learned Magistrate to advert to these crucial aspects while
disagreeing with the Final Report renders the order of cognizance
legally vulnerable and unsustainable.
8. Having independently examined the record and the reasons
assigned by the Investigating Officer in the negative Final Report,
this Court is satisfied that the investigation was conducted in a fair
and comprehensive manner and the conclusions reached therein
were supported by material collected during investigation. At the
very least, the learned Magistrate was under a legal obligation to
address those reasons before choosing to differ therefrom. Since
such an exercise has not been undertaken, the impugned order
taking cognizance stands vitiated on account of non-consideration
of relevant material and failure to record reasons for disagreement
with the Final Report.
9. Consequently, this Court is left with no option but to hold
that the order dated 28.05.2011 passed by the learned Chief
(Uploaded on 12/06/2026 at 12:34:58 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:39 AM)
(11 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:26965] [CRLMP-2195/2014]
Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, taking cognizance of offences under
Sections 366, 376 and 384 IPC against the accused persons
cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The appellate order dated
09.09.2014, being consequential in nature, is also liable to be set
aside.
10. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition preferred by the
accused persons (CRLMP No.2330/2014) deserves acceptance and
is hereby allowed. The order dated 28.05.2011 passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner in FR No.60/2007 as
well as the order dated 09.09.2014 passed by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bikaner in Criminal
Appeal No.3/2013passed are quashed and set aside. The negative
Final Report submitted by the Investigating Agency stands
accepted. The warrants of arrest issued against the accused are
hereby recalled.
11. So far as the petition (CRLMP No.2195/2014) preferred by
the complainant is concerned, the same is dismissed as discussed
in preceding paras.
12. Stay petitions and all pending applications if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
14-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 12/06/2026 at 12:34:58 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:39 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)