The court cannot quash criminal proceedings at this stage without assessing the merits of the case, as issues of fact and evidence should be examined by the trial court.

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1192 of 2024 on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant one Shreevidhya is that she got married the petitioner herein, a Malaysian Citizen on 28.08.1998. After marriage, they have shifted to Malaysia in the year 1999 and on 10.02.2000 a male child was born to them. While being so, in the year 2002, the defacto complainant came to the knowledge that her husband was involved in anti-social activities, which led to huge debts to her husband and his creditors sent goondas and threatened her over phone. Since their act continued, she was unable to tolerate the same and returned back to India on 03.08.2002 along with her son. Before that her husband had obtained Rs.20,00,000/- and jewels from her. Thereafter, she had filed an application for divorce before the First Additional Family Court, Chennai and the same was decreed on 22.07.2007.

3. The further case of the prosecution is that after ten years, her husband came to Chennai and filed a case to restore the exparte decree passed in the year 2007 and he also filed another petition before the Family Court in GWOP.No.3530 of 2016 and obtained an interim order for visitation of her son.

4. The further case of the prosecution is that in late September of this year, the defacto complainant's husband has produced a letter that was supposedly issued by PMO/Malaysia (PMO/Consultant 2014(02/31) dated 25.03.2013, and he represented himself as if he was the advisor to the PM and also has high level contacts and using the same he used to threaten her. Immediately on 12.10.2016, the defacto complainant wrote a letter to the Malaysian Consulate, Chennai and requested them to verify the contents of the document. On 27.12.2016, she has received a reply from the Malaysian Consulate that the letter dated 2.03.2013, is forged and fake. On coming to know the fact, she has lodged a complaint before the first respondent police as against her husband.

5. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent has registered an FIR in Cr.No.01 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 472 of IPC as against the petitioner. After completion of investigation, the first respondent police has filed a final report before the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.1192 of 2024 and it is pending. To quash the said criminal proceeding, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner got married to the second respondent/defacto complainant on 28.08.1998. Since the second respondent could not able to tolerate the harassment made by the petitioner , she along with her son returned to India from Malaysia. The petitioner had returned Rs.20,00,000/- and jewels. After returning from Malaysia, the second respondent has filed a petition before the First Additional Family Court, Chennai seeking for divorce and obtained an exparte decree of divorce. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application seeking for custody of male child in GWOP.No.3530 of 2016 and also obtained an order of interim injunction for visitation of his son and there was absolutely no threatens made by the petitioner. Now, the petitioner's son has attained majority and is aged 26 years. The petitioner is living in Malaysia and the second respondent is living in India.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the alleged forged letter dated 25.03.