The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to prevent the misuse of criminal proceedings in civil disputes and to ensure that the allegations meet the essential elements of the offenses under the IPC.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in Crime No.199 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the FIR dated 16.08.2019 therein insofar as the first accused is concerned.)

1. This petition has been filed to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.199 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent Police for the offences under Sections 406, 424, 420 & 506(2) of IPC as against the petitioner.

2. The second respondent lodged complaint alleging that the petitioner was living with the second respondent for more than twelve years and thereafter she had taken away the documents and movables viz., jewels and cash of Rs.1,88,000/- which was kept for disbursement to contractors. He had asked her to return the documents and movables which was taken away by her for which, she refused to return the same. It is further alleged that the petitioner along with second accused threatened the second respondent/defacto complainant with dire consequences.

3. Heard Mr.V.Karthick, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent police and Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent

4. It is seen that there are totally two accused in which, the petitioner is arrayed as first accused. The second accused died. The petitioner got married in the year 1993, with one Lt.Anil Katoch of the Indian Navy and they adopted a female child, who is now 22 years old. Due to difference of opinion, the petitioner divorced her husband and living with her parents in Mumbai. During the year 2007, the petitioner met the second respondent who was also in the Indian Navy and they started living together. The first marriage of the second respondent was subsisting and even still now is subsisting, since the divorce proceedings initiated by the second respondent is pending as against his wife.

5. It is not disputed that the petitioner and the second respondent were living in relationship for the past twelve years. During the year 2013, they purchased two flats bearing flat Nos.401 & 402 in Goa. While being so, there was a quarrel between them due to which, the petitioner was driven out from her house. The second respondent resigned from his job and he purchased a farm house for horticulture development in Thally near Denkanikottai, where he is at present residing. Again, the petitioner moved to her flat No.402 at Goa with the knowledge of the second respondent.

6. While being so, on 28.04.2014, the second respondent assaulted the petitioner which has resulted in registration of FIR in Crime No.95 of 2015. Further there was negotiation between them and again she joined with the second respondent. During the year 2018, again the petitioner was mentally and physically abused by the second respondent which led her to return to Goa and she was staying in her flat at Goa. Thereafter, she got married with the second accused in the month of January, 2019 and she was living with the second accused in his house. In the month of April, 2019, the petitioner went to her flat to collect her personal belongings. At that juncture, there was a quarrel between the petitioner and second respondent, which has resulted the registration of FIR in Crime No.68 of 2019 as against the second respondent. Therefore, the second respondent also lodged complaint which is registered in Crime No.199 of 2019 and it is under challenge in the present quash Petition. Thus, it is clear that the present impugned FIR has been registered only after registration of the FIR as against the second respondent.

7. As per the allegations, no offence is made out under Sections 420, 406, 424 & 506(2) of IPC as against the petitioner herein. The second respondent has alleged in the complaint that the petitioner has committed offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. It would thus be necessary to examine the ingredients of the