Biren Vaishnav, J.:— RULE. Mr. Rashesh Rindani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Ms. Bhavini Jani, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 2.
2. Having heard Mr. P.R Abhichandani, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. S.V Raju, learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Bhavini Jani, learned advocate for respondent No. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to quash the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2. The reading of the complaint indicates that the original respondent No. 2 has alleged that the applicant herein being the employer, engaged into sexual intimate relationship with respondent No. 2. The allegations, prima facie, on the reading of the complaint thereof indicated that they were for the period ranging from November, 2014 and July, 2016. Mr. P.R Abhichandani, while arguing the quashing petition has drawn my attention to the Agreement entered into between the applicant and the original respondent No. 2 on 08th July 2016, indicating that, the parties had entered into an Agreement not to express anything about the live-in relationship. The respondent No. 2 - original complainant had in her statement before the Police on 26.09.2016 admitted to such an Agreement and indicated that she had entered into such an Agreement. Mr. Raju, however, seriously disputes this fact that according to the original complainant, she is not conversant with the language in Gujarati.
3. Prima facie, according to me, the complaint reveals that the complaint which is filed on 08 December, 2017 i.e more than two and a half years after the first incident which is alleged to have been occurred is an after thought and amounts to abuse of process of law. Hence, interim relief in terms of paragraph 6[C] is granted. Direct service permitted.