IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23.04.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.10908 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.6869 of 2023

1. Shruthi Thilak

2. A.Kannusamy ... Petitioners Vs

1. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, B-9, Fairlands Police Station, Salem City.

2. Indra Priyadharshini ... Respondents Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the proceedings in Crime No.89 of 2023 on the file of the Inspector of Police, B-9 Fairlands Police Station, Salem and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.N.S.Sivakumar For Respondents : Mr.R.Vinothraja, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 Mr.L.Infant Dinesh (for R2)

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.89 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent Police.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered the First Information Report in Crime No.89 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, and 506(1) of IPC, alleging that the second respondent is a Doctor and the husband of the first petitioner is a colleague of the second respondent. He is also the Executive Director of her Hospital under the name and style of Shri Hospitals. While that being so, during the month of September 2021, the first petitioner met her and demanded money by giving some jewels belonging to her mother-in-law, as if she had run away from the matrimonial house. On receipt of the jewels, the second respondent paid her money to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs. That apart, the second accused also had borrowed money on several occasions. The second respondent gave money in good faith, thinking that the money would be returned to her as promised. Later, she came to understand that the jewels produced by the first accused had been stolen from the first petitioner's mother-in-law. Therefore, on the instructions of the first accused's husband, the jewels were handed over to him since they belonged to the first petitioner's mother-in-law. Thereafter, the accused refused to return the money which was already borrowed by them. Therefore, when it was asked by the second respondent, the accused threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the first petitioner and her husband had a misunderstanding due to an illegal intimacy with the second respondent herein. When it was questioned by the first petitioner, the second respondent foisted a false case, as if the petitioners borrowed money from the second respondent, that too by pledging the first petitioner's mother-in-law's jewels. Further, the first petitioner's husband, though he is a doctor, has a Movie production Company and produced films, due to which he had huge losses, and jewels of the first petitioner were also pledged and sold at the instance of her husband. That apart, they also parted with Rs.2 Crores of money by selling immovable properties for producing films.

4. While that being so, the husband of the first petitioner got addicted to alcohol and also had an illegal intimacy with the second respondent. Thereafter, there was continuous harassment by the husband of the first petitioner, and she was also driven out of the matrimonial house. Hence, the first petitioner filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act in DVC.No.95 of 2022 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai. In order to escape from the clutches of the case pending against the husband of the first petitioner, her husband influenced the second respondent and filed the present complaint.

5. The learned Government Advocate (crl. side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that the investigation is almost completed and they are about to file a final report.

6. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7.