LAXMIKANT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner through Video Conferencing as well as learned Public Prosecutor, present in the Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated by the prosecutrix in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecutrix did not have cordial relation with her husband and further she was also having extra marital relation with another person.

(3.) Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is a Government Servant and since prosecutrix was in close relation (i.e. Mausi's daughter) and in order to help in the strained relation, the petitioner had come forward to settle the dispute between the prosecutrix and her husband. Learned counsel further submitted that various statements which have been recorded by the Police during investigation including statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the conversation recorded in the CD, further nowhere implicate the present petitioner.