JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner Shanker Goond has approached this Court seeking quashing of the FIR No.0095/2017 registered against him at the Mahila Police Station, Jodhpur City (West) for the offence under Section 376 IPC at the instance of the respondent No.2 Smt. 'R'. 2. Facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the instant misc. petition are noted herein below: The respondent No. 2 lodged the above mentioned written FIR at the Mahila Police Station, Jodhpur City (West) on 12.06.2017 alleging inter alia, that the petitioner, who was her colleague at work, took her indecent photographs and started blackmailing her with a demand for acceding into an illicit sexual relationship. On resistance shown by the complainant, the accused threatened that he would upload the indecent photographs on the internet. The complainant further alleged that the accused misused these photographs and forced her to establish physical relations with him under the threat of making them viral. She alleged that her husband has also lodged an FIR against the petitioner wherein, she gave a statement favouring the accused because she was afraid of the threat given by the accused to her. The petitioner took her into his own house and promised to marry her but later on, she was abandoned and was living with her mother for the last 4-5 months. The petitioner allegedly came to her mother's house and threatened that she would be killed if she took any action against him. On the basis of these allegations, the aforesaid FIR came to be registered against the petitioner. 3. During the course of investigation of the present FIR, statement of the prosecutrix, aged 32 years, was recorded by the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which, she repeated the allegations levelled in the FIR and alleged that the accused used to pressurise her into establishing sexual relations under the threat of making the indecent photographs viral. She alleged that on 16.08.2016, the accused forced her to elope with him. Fearing the threats of the accused, she went with him to Nagaur. Thereafter, the accused brought her back and both stayed together at some unknown place where he used to assault her sexually. She alleged that on 16.08.2016, the accused forced her to elope with him. Fearing the threats of the accused, she went with him to Nagaur. Thereafter, the accused brought her back and both stayed together at some unknown place where he used to assault her sexually. She resisted saying that she was a married woman and that she did not love him but the accused persisted with his threats and also told her that even her husband would discord her. The accused also gave her an allurement that he would marry her. She admitted having given the statements favouring the accused during investigation of the FIR lodged at the instance of her husband against the accused. The petitioner has now approached this Court by way of this misc. under Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition seeking quashing of the impugned FIR and all proceedings sought to be taken thereunder. 4. The petitioner has placed on record of the petition, an agreement dated 28.12.2016 indicating that he and the complainant had agreed to lead a life of 'Live-in-Relationship' and that the complainant had abandoned her husband. The reason for doing so is indicated in the agreement that the husband Bablu used to frequently quarrel with Smt. 'R' under intoxication and thus, she found it impossible to continue her matrimonial relationship with him. 5. Shri Lokesh Mathur, learned counsel representing the petitioner urged that in view of the fact that while being examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. during the course of investigation of the earlier FIR No. 391/2016 registered at the Police Station Pratap Nagar at her husband's instance, the prosecutrix, who is a major married woman, categorically stated that she had eloped with the petitioner of her own free will and was desirous of living with him and that the relationship was consensual. Obviously the present FIR is nothing but a second FIR on the same facts and has been lodged with oblique motive. He thus implored the Court to exercise its inherent powers for quashing the impugned FIR which, as per him, tantamounted to a gross abuse of process of law. 6. Shri Deepak Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Kuldeep Purohit, learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. He thus implored the Court to exercise its inherent powers for quashing the impugned FIR which, as per him, tantamounted to a gross abuse of process of law. 6. Shri Deepak Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Kuldeep Purohit, learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. However, they too were not in a position to dispute the fact that the prosecutrix was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. during investigation of the earlier FIR No.291/2016 registered at the instance of her husband and in the said statement, she categorically stated of an amoral affair with the present petitioner citing a reason that her husband used to harass her and thus, she did not desire to continue her matrimonial relations with him. Needless to say that the prosecutrix is a major married woman having three children from her marriage with Bablu. The earlier statement of the prosecutrix was recorded on 30.08.2016. In such statement, there is no allegation whatsoever that the petitioner had snapped any indecent photographs of the complainant. The present FIR came to be lodged on 12.06.2017. The allegations set out in the present FIR that the complainant was being blackmailed by the accused under the threat of uploading her indecent photographs, is apparently and manifestly not a fact but a fiction. In the present FIR, it is categorically mentioned that after keeping her with himself for some time, Shankar Goond turned her out of his home while resiling from the promise of marriage. She was living with her mother for the last 4-5 months. Had there been an iota of truth in the allegations of the prosecutrix then, she had ample opportunities to immediately report the matter to the police no sooner she had been turned out of the house by the accused. 7. In view of the discussion made herein above, this Court is of the firm opinion that the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant was totally consensual. Both of them are major persons and there existed no such circumstance which could have compelled the prosecutrix to indulge in the extramarital fling with the petitioner unless she herself desired the same. The subsequent theory set out by her in the highly belated FIR that the accused blackmailed her under the threat of making her indecent photographs viral is nothing but a figment of imagination and a sheer concoction. 8. The subsequent theory set out by her in the highly belated FIR that the accused blackmailed her under the threat of making her indecent photographs viral is nothing but a figment of imagination and a sheer concoction. 8. In view of the discussion made herein above, this Court is of the firm opinion that allowing investigation of the impugned FIR to be continued against the present petitioner would be nothing short of a gross abuse of process of law. 9. Resultantly, the instant misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned FIR No. 0095/2017 registered at the Mahila Police Station, Jodhpur City (West) and all consequential proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against the present petitioner for the offence under Section 376 IPC are hereby quashed.