1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing the FIR and its entire investigation in FIR No.49/2016 dated 21.01.2016 registered at Police Station, Udaimandir, Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 376, 420 and 386 IPC.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner stated that the FIR bearing No.49/2016 was registered against the petitioner on 21.01.2016 alleging therein that in the year 2002, the complainant was studying in B.A. First Year at Jodhpur. During the election, the complainant came in contact with the petitioner, who was the President of Youth Congress (Rural). The petitioner encouraged the complainant to contest elections, and also searched for the job for the complainant. The petitioner appointed the complainant as his Private Secretary on 21.10.2007, and thereafter, got her a job in Max New York Life Insurance Company. The allegation was that on 21.02.2009, the petitioner gave some pills to the complainant, and thereafter, committed rape upon her.

3. In the FIR itself, the complainant stated that the petitioner apologized for the act before the parents of the complainant, and proposed to marry her. The petitioner was continuously coming to the house of the complainant and they were together in connection with many tasks. Out of the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant, one son, namely, Tejas was born on 08.10.2013 in Jaipur. The complainant and the petitioner together resided at Jaipur for a long time. In the FIR, it was also alleged that in March, 2014, the complainant came to know that the petitioner is already married and when the mother of the complainant expired on 29.10.2015, the petitioner objected his name to be published in the newspaper as husband of the complainant. The petitioner also made the complainant to contest the elections for the post of Member, Zila Parishad. The FIR was registered and the investigation was commenced.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also argued that on the face of it, on a bare reading of the FIR, no offence has been made out, as it is a clear case of consensual relationship being deviated into acrimony between the live-in partners.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further stated that from the inception itself, the complainant was consenting to the relationship and the relationship between the parties resulted into birth of a son, namely, Tejas, and thus, the act would not come within the purview of Section 376 IPC.

6. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Prashant Bharti Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in AIR 2013 SC 2753, relevant paras 19 to 22 of which read as under:-

“19. The proposition of law, pertaining to quashing of criminal proceedings, initiated against an accused by a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code of Criminal Procedure") has been dealt with by this Court in Rajiv Thapar and Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No... of 2013, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4883 of 2008, decided on 23.1.2013) wherein this Court inter alia held as under:

22. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution's/complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determina