Judgment :- 1. The Petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the Respondent – Police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 366 of IPC, in crime No. 89 of 2012, on the file of the Respondent -_Police and hence, seeks Anticipatory Bail. 2. Heard Mr. R. Gandhi, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. C.Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that one Vimaladevi had given a Complaint and the case has been registered in Crime No. 89 of 2012 against the Accused Suganya. It is alleged in the Complaint that the defacto Complainant is the wife of one Suresh @ Mayakrishnan. Her husband had been taken by the Accused Suganya who is also married lady, with the idea of getting money from her husband and the case has been registered under Section 366, IPC. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that to Habeas Corpus Petitions have been filed in H.C.P.(MD) Nos. 64 & 91 of 2012 before this Honourable Court, i.e., H.C.P(MD) No. 91 of 2012 is filed by one Dinesh, who is the husband of the said Suganya and H.C.P(MD) No 64 of 2012 is filed by one Vimala Devi, who is wife if Suresh @ Mayakrishnan. While recording the statement of the defacto Complainant, it was revealed that the father and brother of Suganya have assisted her for abducting defacto Complainant’s husband. The brother of the First Accused was already arrested and remanded to judicial custody. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Police party unnecessarily arrested the son of this Petitioner and either the Petitioner or his son have no knowledge about the defacto Complainant’s husband being taken by the Petitioner’s daughter. It appears that only the defacto Complainant’s husband had eloped with the daughter of the Petitioner and the Petitioner is not aware of the whereabouts of both his daughter as well as the defacto Complainant’s husband. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that it is clear abuse of process of law and the ingredients of Section 366, IPC are not made out. 5. The learned Counsel for the intervenor/defacto Complainant submits that the defacto Complainant’s husband has been taken by the Petitioner’s daughter and the Petitioner is harbouring the eloped couples. 6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that it is clear abuse of process of law and the ingredients of Section 366, IPC are not made out. 5. The learned Counsel for the intervenor/defacto Complainant submits that the defacto Complainant’s husband has been taken by the Petitioner’s daughter and the Petitioner is harbouring the eloped couples. 6. This Court considered that the submissions made on either side and perused the copy of the FIR and other records. 7. This Court feels that it is very very unfortunate to arrest the son of the Petitioner and the Police are not aware of the provisions in the IPC as well as in the Cr. P.C., The defecto Complainant is aged about 34 years and her husband is aged about 40 years. Though it is alleged by the defacto Complainant, he r husband had been taken by the Petitioner’s daughter, it cannot be without the consent of the defacto Complainant ‘s husband and it could be only the defacto Complaint’s husband, who had enticed Suganya, who is already married. “Section 495 reads as follows: Enticing or taking away or detained with Criminal intent a married woman - Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” 8. As per above Section, only the defacto Complainant’s husband may be liable under Section 498, IPC. Police cannot take cognizance of offence under Section 497, IPC (Adultery) and Section 498, IPC( enticing a married woman) and Police have no power to investigate those offence. As per Section 198, Cr.P.C only aggrieved person can file Complain before the Court. As per the facts available in this case it is only Suganya’s husband Dinesh is aggrieved person. Further no female partner can be added as Accused for the above said offences. 9. Further it is ridiculous on the part of the Police to register a case against woman/ Suganya for abducting a male person under Section 366, IPC. As per the facts available in this case it is only Suganya’s husband Dinesh is aggrieved person. Further no female partner can be added as Accused for the above said offences. 9. Further it is ridiculous on the part of the Police to register a case against woman/ Suganya for abducting a male person under Section 366, IPC. As per Section 366, IPC, the victim should be a woman and not a man. Definitely Police overacted in this matter. 10. The Respondent-Police, exceeded their limit, by relying on the statement of the defacto Complainant that the Petitioner and her son only kidnapped the husband of the defacto Complainant and sent him along with Suganya, and arrested the young boy only 19 years. 11. The registration of the case by Police against a woman for abducting a man under Section 366, IPC is illegal. In the said circumstances, the FIR registration by the police in Crime No. 89 of 2012 is quashed. As FIR had been quashed, there is no apprehension of arrest of the Petitioner and the Anticipatory Bail Petitioner is closed. 12. The arrested Accused one Dineshraj, who is now confined at Borstal School, Melur, is directed to be released forthwith.