JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Pranav Trivedi waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1-State, whereas learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 2-original complainant.

2. The petitioner-original accused is before this Court invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) praying to quash and set aside the First Information Report being C.R. No. I-30 of 2017 registered with Mahila Police Station, Rajkot City for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 406, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had friendly relation with the complainant and they had cohabitated several times. The complainant is a married woman aged about 37 years. It is the case of the petitioner that the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code has not been made against him since the complainant had consented for establishing physical relation with the petitioner.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Virat Popat, referring to the facts stated in the FIR, submits that the details given in the FIR itself suggest that the complainant and the petitioner were in consensual relationship and because of internal disputes, the FIR has been lodged with an intention to threaten and blackmail the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Popat further submits that even after filing of FIR, the petitioner helped the complainant in bailing her out in connection with the FIR lodged on 14.02.2017 for offence under Sections 506(2), 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the complainant was also arraigned as an accused in connection with an FIR being C.R. No. 11208050211981 of 2021 and was arrested and sent to the judicial custody for the offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Learned advocate Mr. Popat has also referred to the photographs prior to the FIR, to submit that the complainant and the petitioner were in cordial relationship and had been together on different occasions. Learned advocate Mr. Popat further states that the photographs post FIR too suggest that both of them had continued their relationship.

5. Countering the arguments, learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani submits that the facts in the FIR detail the manner in which the petitioner had exploited the complainant-victim. Learned advocate Mr. Jasani submits that the petitioner by giving false promise to marry, established physical relationship with the complainant. Learned advocate Mr. Jasani further submits that by threatening the complainant he would beat her and her children, and would forcibly enter into physical relationship. Learned advocate Mr. Jasani submits that the petitioner established friendship with the husband of the complainant and led him to consume liquor and non-vegetarian food on different occasions. Learned advocate Mr. Jasani also submits that the petitioner also threatened the complainant by controlling her husband and thus, the entire management of the house was under the control of the petitioner. Further, according to learned advocate Mr. Jasani, some loans were taken in the name of the complainant and the complainant has alleged that the petitioner had not even paid loans’ installments. It is submitted that after the husband of the complainant faced paralytic attack and was bed-ridden, during that time too, the petitioner would forcibly engage in relation with the complainant. After the death of the husband on 02.01.2015, when the complainant proposed for marriage, the petitioner refused and gradually decreased the relationship, ultimately, the complainant was constrained to file the FIR.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Popat relies upon the decision in case of Kaini Rajan vs. State of Kerala, (2013) 9 SCC 113. In reply to the decision cited by learned advocate Mr. Popat, learned advocate Mr. Jasani sub