ORDER 1. Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.66/2019 registered at Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur City (South) for the offences u/s 376, 313 and 120B IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been wrongly implicated in this case. A bare reading of the FIR does not disclose any offence against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that complainant is a major lady and having a criminal nature. She has lodged the present FIR to extort the money from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s wife Smt. Geeta Makhija has lodged a written complaint against the complainant u/s 384 and 388 IPC. After that, as a counter blast, complainant-respondent had lodged the present FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a rich man and he had engaged the respondent in advertisement. For taking the money, respondent wanted to implicate the petitioner in the false case. So, she had lodged the present FIR on false and frivolous facts. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that respondent had travelled with the petitioner not only in India but also outside from India in Nepal in August 2016 and Bangkok in September 2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that entire expenses of the trip was borne by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that complainant had made intimate relations with the petitioner with her own wish and she also very well knew that petitioner was a married person. Petitioner had not given any false assurance for marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that complainant had taken lakhs of rupees from the petitioner by blackmailing him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the FIR, petitioner and complainant were having in relation from 2014 and she had lodged the present FIR after a lapse of 5 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no evidence regarding abortion because no evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that whatever relation made between them are consensual. So, offence of rape is not made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the investigation, Investigating Officer has also collected the call details as well as bills of the hotels etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that whatever relation made between them are consensual. So, offence of rape is not made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the investigation, Investigating Officer has also collected the call details as well as bills of the hotels etc. which clearly show that respondent was consented party in the affair. So, FIR lodged against the petitioner be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:- (1) Pramod Surya Bhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra & anr. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608 ; (2) Shivshankar Alias Shiva vs. State of Karnataka & anr. (2019) 18 SCC 204 ; (3) Maheshwar Tigga vs. State of Jharkhand (2020) 10 SCC 108 ; (4) X vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) in CRLA No.613/2020 decided on 15.12.2020; (5) Baldev Gora vs. State of Raj. & anr. 2018 (3) RLW 2417 (Raj.). 4. Learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned Public Prosecutor have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that after the investigation, Investigating Officer had found proved the offences u/s 376 & 313 IPC against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that present FIR lodged by respondent is not a counter blast because Investigating Officer had filed negative final report in FIR filed by the wife of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that no protest petition was filed by wife of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that there is no locus to file the said FIR by Smt. Geeta Makhija. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that from the inception, petitioner cheated the respondent and promised to marry her. So, consent obtained by the petitioner on account of marriage. So, as per the FIR, offences u/s 376 & 313 IPC are found proved against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that during the investigation, evidence regarding abortion was not collected because concerned hospital destroyed the documents regarding abortion. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that by invoking section 482 Cr.P.C. mini trial cannot be done at this stage. Defences raised by the petitioner can be taken into consideration at the time of trial. So, petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that by invoking section 482 Cr.P.C. mini trial cannot be done at this stage. Defences raised by the petitioner can be taken into consideration at the time of trial. So, petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 6. It is an admitted position that respondent is a major lady and she had gone with the petitioner at various places not only in India but also abroad. It is also admitted position that as per the FIR, petitioner had established physical relation with her in the year 2015 but she had lodged the present FIR in the year 2019 after lapse of more than 4 years. It is also admitted position that complainant very well knew that petitioner was a married person and she had established the physical relation with him. So, it cannot be said that sexual relation between them on the false promise of marriage. Investigating Officer during the investigation had collected the documents regarding payment of tour expenses and etc. By these material and evidences, it is well established that respondent was consented party and physical relations were made by them on account of her consent. Case laws cited by learned counsel for the petitioner fully support the case of the petitioner. So, allow the proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law. So, present petition deserves to be allowed. 7. Therefore, petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned FIR No.66/2019 registered at Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur City (South) for the offences u/s 376, 313 and 120B IPC and all consequential proceedings pursuant to the said FIR, is hereby quashed and set aside.