MAHALAKSHMI AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 88 of 2014 on the file of Inspector of Police, Sivakasi Town Police Station, Sivakasi.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for first respondent.

(3.) THE complaint informs that second respondent/ de facto complainant and the first petitioner are husband and wife and that they had a minor son and daughter. The couple lived happily till 2012. Thereafter the first petitioner developed illicit intimacy with the fourth petitioner, an advocate. The fourth petitioner made all out efforts to cause a division between husband and wife by advising the wife to impute mental illness to the second respondent. The second respondent was referred to hospital and using such position the first petitioner walked out on him and thereafter at the instance of fourth petitioner, the first petitioner preferred a false complaint alleging cruelty on 31.07.2012. The issue was settled at the police station. However, as the first petitioner failed to cohabit with him, the second respondent filed H.M.O.P.153 of 2012 on the file of Sub Court, Sivakasi seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Despite an order passed on 11.09.2012, the first petitioner refused to cohabit. The second respondent moved a petition for guardianship of minor children before the District Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur. On the advice of elders, the illicit relationship between the first petitioner, his wife and the fourth petitioner/advocate was not informed in the petition for divorce moved before Sub Court, Srivilliputhur on 15.10.2012. Petitioners 2 to 5 joined the petitioner/wife in threatening to do away with the siblings of the de facto complainant. Hence, the second respondent withdrew the case preferred by him. In such circumstances, the petitioners threatened and obtained a power of attorney from the second respondent/ de facto complainant in respect of an extent of 38 cents belonging to him on 07.02.2013. He was threatened against disclosing the same. The second respondent survived by secretly informing the position to his relatives and friends. On subsequent enquiry at the concerned Sub Registrar's office, the second respondent/ de facto complainant learnt that the first petitioner/wife had effected sale of the de facto complainant's/second respondent's property to her father, the second petitioner on 08.02.2013 for a sum of Rs.21,00,000/ -. The second petitioner in turn had executed a settlement deed in favour of the first petitioner on 19.02.2013. On such allegations the case has been registered for offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506(i) r/w 109 I.P.C.