ORDER : M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner, estranged husband of the 2 nd respondent to set aside the impugned order, dated 13.06.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.1394 of 2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Alandur. 2. Earlier this Court by order, dated 21.09.2022 disposed the present revision setting aside the impugned order directing the 1 st respondent Police to register a case on the complaint of the petitioner, investigate and file charge sheet within a period of months and report compliance. Aggrieved over the same, the 2 nd respondent herein preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.3388 of 2023 (arising out of SLP(CRL)No.11400 of 2022). The Apex Court on 21.11.2022 passed order of interim stay of operation of the order, dated 21.09.2022 in Crl.R.C.No.1291 of 2022 and thereafter, passed final order on 31.10.2023 setting aside the order of this Court dated 21.09.2022 in Crl.R.C.No.1291 of 2022 and restoring the revision to the file of this Court. Hence, this Court by order, dated 18.12.2023 impleaded the respondents 2 and 3, ordered notice, after hearing the petitioner and respondents, the following order is passed. 3. Gist of the case is that the petitioner is a Commander Pilot of Air India residing in Air India Staff Colony, Meenambakkam with his wife/2 nd respondent and daughter Anushka Jose till the year 2018. The 2 nd respondent went to Cochin for her own reasons, later decided to live there. The petitioner used to visit the 2 nd respondent and his daughter frequently at Aluva, Ernakulam where the petitioner had an apartment. On 22.12.2018, the petitioner made arrangement for forthcoming family function which was to be held during January 2019 and suggested his wife/2 nd respondent to wear gold ornaments since she was not wearing jewels on previous functions. Almost all jewels purchased by the petitioner. Normally, the jewels for safety kept in bank locker at State Bank of India, Meenambakkam Branch in Locker No.291 linked to Account No.30158914499. The said joint bank account operated by the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent independently. Since the petitioner's wife was in Ernakulam, she informed her husband to bring the jewels. The petitioner was unable to find jewel box in Almirah of the house, after search, he was able to find the jewel box in a pouch. The said joint bank account operated by the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent independently. Since the petitioner's wife was in Ernakulam, she informed her husband to bring the jewels. The petitioner was unable to find jewel box in Almirah of the house, after search, he was able to find the jewel box in a pouch. When he opened the jewel box, most of the jewels found missing and some were imitation jewels. The petitioner informed the same to his wife/2 nd respondent. But the 2 nd respondent was not shocked hearing about missing of jewels. The petitioner took the pouch to Cochin on 23.12.2018 and the 2 nd respondent confirmed that except few gold and silver ornaments, the other jewels were imitation. Thereafter, petitioner, 2 nd respondent and 2 nd respondent's mother returned to Chennai, searched the entire house, later petitioner visited the State Bank of India, Meenambakkam to open the locker. Since the Bank employees announced strike on 24.12.2018, the locker could not be opened. Later the petitioner had gone to Ernakulam to celebrate Christmas on 26.12.2018, returned back to Chennai on 27.12.2018, opened the bank locker and found the locker empty. The petitioner informed the 2 nd respondent to come Chennai to lodge a Police complaint and the petitioner booked air tickets for his wife and daughter to travel to Chennai in Air India on 28.12.2018. The 2 nd respondent avoided travelling to Chennai. Thereafter, the petitioner gave a complaint to the 1 st respondent Police as well as to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chennai-South for missing jewels. 4. During enquiry, the petitioner informed that he had suspicion over one Ms.Therasa, a family friend who used to visit his house frequently for prayer service. Based on which, Ms.Therasa called for enquiry by the 1 st respondent Police, after enquiry, the 1 st respondent Police informed that Ms.Therasa had no role in missing of jewels, hence, the 1 st respondent Police decided to call the 2 nd respondent for enquiry. The 2 nd respondent failed to respond to the notice sent by Police. On the other hand, the 2 nd respondent filed a petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.7502 of 2019 seeking not to harass under the guise of enquiry. The 2 nd respondent failed to respond to the notice sent by Police. On the other hand, the 2 nd respondent filed a petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.7502 of 2019 seeking not to harass under the guise of enquiry. This Court, by order, dated 28.03.2019 directed the Police to issue a written summon under Section 160 Cr.P.C., and directed the enquiry to be recorded in the general diary and not to harass the 2 nd respondent and to follow the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2014 (2) SCC (1) Thereafter, the 2 nd respondent filed anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.No.7603 of 2019 before this Court and this Court by order, dated 28.03.2019 recording the submission that the petition enquiry in C.No.64 of 2019 is pending on the complaint of the petitioner, disposed the anticipatory bail with a direction to the 1 st respondent Police to conduct enquiry and register FIR if any prima facie case is made out or close the petition enquiry within a period of two weeks. The 1 st respondent Police sent notice to the 2 nd respondent. For the reasons best known, the 2 nd respondent not responded the Police notice, but made allegations against the petitioner informing that she has filed domestic violence complaint and maintenance case against the petitioner before the Courts in Kerala. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a direction petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.1056 of 2020 seeking to take appropriate action on the complaint of the petitioner, at that time, the 1 st respondent Police informed that after preliminary enquiry, the petitioner's complaint in C.No.64 of 2019 was closed on 25.04.2019. The petitioner applied under RTI seeking closure report in C.No.64 of 2019. From the report, it is seen that the 1 st respondent Police sent notice to the 2 nd respondent on 08.04.2019 but the 2 nd respondent failed to appear for enquiry and sent a reply that she filed cases against the petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate IX, Ernakulam in M.C.No.20 of 2019 and before the Family Court, Ernakulam under Section 125 Cr.P.C and domestic violence complaint. It is also recorded that second notice, dated 15.04.2019 was sent to the 2 nd respondent for appearance on 20.04.2019 citing the order of this Court. It is also recorded that second notice, dated 15.04.2019 was sent to the 2 nd respondent for appearance on 20.04.2019 citing the order of this Court. On that day, the 2 nd respondent along with her mother, sister, daughter Anushka Jose and a relative Venkat appeared. It is also recorded that the petitioner appeared along with his friend Senthil and took time to verify, collect and submit details of proceedings initiated by the 2 nd respondent before the Courts in Kerala. 5. The specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent had a love marriage on 02.01.1997 and they have a daughter named Anushka Jose. On 07.02.2018, the petitioner and 2 nd respondent went to Kerala to attend marriage function. From 26.02.2018, the 2 nd respondent permanently stayed in Cochin, Kerala. In the enquiry report, it is recorded that there is no detail with regard to when and where the jewels were purchased by the petitioner and in the marriage photos, wearing of jewels were not found. This closure report is bereft of facts not with reasons and the copy of the closure report not furnished. Aggrieved over the closure of complaint, the petitioner field a protest petition before the lower Court. The lower Court on a wrong notion held that the offence of cheating would not arise since there is no deception at the inception stage and further entrustment not proved. Further, held petitioner not produced any document to prove the 2 nd respondent operated the locker on 13.06.2016. Thus, the lower Court failed to appreciate the complaint and the documents produced in support of the complaint. The finding of Court below is perverse and the impugned order to be set aside. 6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the 1 st respondent Police submitted that on the complaint of the petitioner, C.No.64 of 2019 assigned, enquiry conducted, during enquiry, petitioner appeared and gave statement. The petitioner suspected Ms.Terasa, a family friend who used to visit and stay in the petitioner's house. The said Ms.Terasa called for enquiry and she denied theft of any jewels in the petitioner's house. Ms.Terasa also gave statement that the matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent was stormy and have difference of opinion and Ms.Terasa took steps to reconcile the difference between them. The said Ms.Terasa called for enquiry and she denied theft of any jewels in the petitioner's house. Ms.Terasa also gave statement that the matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent was stormy and have difference of opinion and Ms.Terasa took steps to reconcile the difference between them. In fact, she had taken both of them to psychiatric consultation and she used to regularly pray for them. For prayer meetings, Ms.Terasa came to the petitioner's house, stayed there on few occasions to bridge the differences between the petitioner and 2 nd respondent. The said Ms.Terasa is a Senior Citizen, retired Government official and false allegation made against her. On enquiry, the 1 st respondent Police found Ms.Terasa had role in missing of jewels, thereafter the 2 nd respondent called for enquiry. But the 2 nd respondent failed to appear, on the contrary, made allegations as though she was harassed in the guise of enquiry. The 2 nd respondent filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.7502 of 2019 not to harass and this Court by order, dated 28.03.2019 directed the 1 st respondent Police to issue notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C and also to follow the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari case (cited supra). Following the direction of this Court, notice was sent to the 2 nd respondent but she failed to respond to the notice despite direction of this Court. Later, she sent her response by registered post stating that she filed domestic violence case and maintenance case against her estranged husband/petitioner in the Courts in the State of Kerala. 7. He further submitted that the 2 nd respondent along with her family members appeared before the 1 st respondent Police and made counter complaint against the petitioner. After detailed enquiry, the complaint of the petitioner closed. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed a protest petition in Crl.M.P.No.1394 of 2021 before the lower Court. The lower Court by impugned order finding the protest petition not maintainable, dismissed the same. Against which, the petitioner filed the present revision before this Court and this Court earlier by order, dated 21.09.2022 had set aside the impugned order and directed the 1 st respondent Police to register FIR and conduct investigation against the 2 nd respondent. The lower Court by impugned order finding the protest petition not maintainable, dismissed the same. Against which, the petitioner filed the present revision before this Court and this Court earlier by order, dated 21.09.2022 had set aside the impugned order and directed the 1 st respondent Police to register FIR and conduct investigation against the 2 nd respondent. Challenging the order of this Court, the 2 nd respondent approached the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.3388 of 2023 on the ground that without hearing the 2 nd respondent the impugned order passed against her. The Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the order of this Court, dated 21.09.2022 and remitted back the present revision to be heard after hearing the 2 nd respondent. 8. Since this Court earlier passed on order in this revision on 21.09.2022 to register a case, the 1 st respondent Police registered FIR against the 2 nd respondent in Crime No.63 of 2022 for offence under Section 380 IPC. The 2 nd respondent filed anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.No.26221 of 2023 and this Court by order, dated 07.12.2022 granted anticipatory bail. After registration of the case, due to the above legal proceedings, the investigation is kept on hold. Hence, he prays for appropriate direction of this Court. 9. The learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent filed a typed set and made submissions stating that the 2 nd respondent and the petitioner had a love marriage, out of their wedlock, they have a daughter Anushka Jose. The petitioner was leading wayward life having extra marital affair which was objected by the 2 nd respondent and there was a matrimonial discord in this regard. The petitioner was abusing and harassing the 2 nd respondent and later she was chased out of the matrimonial home. On 26.03.2018, the 2 nd respondent not taken any jewels along with her. On 23.12.2018, the petitioner had gone to Kerala along with a jewel box and pouch. On opening the same, it was found most of the jewels of imitations. In offensive, the petitioner lodged a complaint to the 1 st respondent Police against unknown persons, but the complaint is narrated focusing on the 2 nd respondent. The petitioner and his friend Senthil had gone to Kerala and caused harassment by following the 2 nd respondent's daughter to the school and took photographs, for which, a complaint lodged to the Police in Kerala. The petitioner and his friend Senthil had gone to Kerala and caused harassment by following the 2 nd respondent's daughter to the school and took photographs, for which, a complaint lodged to the Police in Kerala. The petitioner using the false complaint in C.No.64 of 2019 is harassing the 2 nd respondent continuously. Left with no other option, the 2 nd respondent approached this Court and filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.7502 of 2019 not to harass. Despite the same, harassment continued. On apprehension, the 2 nd respondent filed anticipatory bail before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.7603 of 2019. During hearing, it was informed that enquiry in C.No.64 of 2019 closed. Despite the same, the 1 st respondent Police taking advantage of the earlier order passed by this Court, issued summons and forced her to attend the enquiry. The 2 nd respondent being a lady sent a detailed reply along with the details of the cases filed by her against the petitioner for maintenance, domestic violence case before the Courts in Kerala. Thereafter to, pressure from the Police was mounting. Left with no other option, the 2 nd respondent, her daughter, mother, sister and a family friend came to Chennai and gave statement to the Police. Later on her explanation, finding that the petitioner's complaint is without any materials, magnified the matrimonial discord for the purpose of harassment, the 1 st respondent Police closed the enquiry. Annoyed over the same, the petitioner filed a protest petition before the lower Court in Crl.M.P.No.1394 of 2021. Finding no merits in the petitioner's contention, the lower Court dismissed the protest petition, against which, the petitioner filed the present revision before this Court and this Court earlier by order, dated 21.09.2022 directed the 1 st respondent to register a case against the 2 nd respondent and to file a charge sheet even without hearing the 2 nd respondent. Aggrieved over the same, the 2 nd respondent filed Criminal Appeal No.3388 of 2023 before the Hon'ble Apex Court. At the time of admission, the Hon'ble Apex Court granted stay of the order of this Court, dated 21.09.2022 but the 1 st respondent Police in the meanwhile registered FIR in Crime No.63 of 2022 against the 2 nd respondent. Aggrieved over the same, the 2 nd respondent filed Criminal Appeal No.3388 of 2023 before the Hon'ble Apex Court. At the time of admission, the Hon'ble Apex Court granted stay of the order of this Court, dated 21.09.2022 but the 1 st respondent Police in the meanwhile registered FIR in Crime No.63 of 2022 against the 2 nd respondent. At the time of passing the final order on 31.10.2023, the Hon'ble Apex Court found that the order passed by this Court on 21.09.2022 is not proper and set aside the same directing this Court to give opportunity to the 2 nd respondent and thereafter pass appropriate orders. Thus, the above facts would clearly show that only for the purpose of harassment, as a counterblast for the cases filed by the 2 nd respondent against the petitioner in the Courts of Kerala, the petitioner initiated the criminal proceedings against the 2 nd respondent. The registration of FIR in Crime No.63 of 2022 despite the stay order of the Hon'ble Apex Court is not proper, hence, the FIR to be quashed. 10. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 11. It is seen that the petitioner and 2 nd respondent are living separately due to matrimonial discord. The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased 90 sovereigns of gold jewels which were kept in the bank locker and in steel Almirah in the house. The 2 nd respondent left the matrimonial home and she is staying in Ernakulam, Kerala. The 2 nd respondent informed the petitioner to bring all jewels to Cochin. The petitioner made search for the jewel box in Almirah of the house and on opening the jewel box, most of the jewels were found to be imitation. The petitioner informed the same to the 2 nd respondent and later took the jewel box to Kerala and the 2 nd respondent confirms the same. Thereafter, the petitioner lodged a complaint to the 1 st respondent Police for missing of jewels and C.No.64 of 2019 assigned. The petitioner doubted one Ms.Terasa who was called and enquired by the Police. Later, the Police issued summon to the 2 nd respondent for enquiry. 12. It is also seen that the 2 nd respondent initiated domestic violence case, maintenance case against the petitioner in the Courts of Kerala. The petitioner doubted one Ms.Terasa who was called and enquired by the Police. Later, the Police issued summon to the 2 nd respondent for enquiry. 12. It is also seen that the 2 nd respondent initiated domestic violence case, maintenance case against the petitioner in the Courts of Kerala. The specific case of the petitioner is that a joint locker in Locker No.291 linked to Account No.30158914499, State Bank of India, Meenambakkam Branch, Chennai is in the name of the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent. The State Bank of India, Meenambakkam by communication dated 10.04.2019 confirmed that the locker was operated on 13.06.2016 by the 2 nd respondent and the locker was operated by the petitioner on 27.12.2018. The specific case is that the petitioner found the jewel box in the house on 23.12.2018 where most of the jewels were found to be imitation. Who replaced the jewels with imitation and for what reason it was done, is not known. The petitioner immediately went to Kerala and informed the 2 nd respondent about imitation jewels. Though the 2 nd respondent initially agreed to come to Chennai and open the locker, thereafter for some reason she avoided. The petitioner opened the locker on 27.12.2018 and found locker empty. Now the specific case of the petitioner is that 90 sovereigns of jewels purchased by him found missing. 13. The cause and reason and how the jewels went missing, replaced by imitation jewels, needs probe. It is seen that both petitioner and 2 nd respondent are trading charges of adultery, extra marital affair against each other. 14. It is seen that the 1 st respondent pursuant to the order of this Court, dated 21.09.2022 registered FIR in Crime No.63 of 2022 on 26.09.2022. The 2 nd respondent aggrieved over the order passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1291 of 2022, dated 21.09.2022 approached the Hon'ble Apex Court in Crl.A.No.3388 of 2023. The Hon'ble Apex Court granted interim stay of this Court order dated 21.09.2022. In the meanwhile, FIR in Crime No.63 of 2022 registered. On coming to know the Apex Court order, after registering FIR, no investigation conducted. The Apex Court passed final order in Crl.A.No.3388 of 2023 dated 31.10.2023 setting aside this Court order dated 21.09.2022 and remitted Crl.R.C.No.1291 of 2022 to the file of this Court directing to give opportunity and hear the 2 nd respondent. On coming to know the Apex Court order, after registering FIR, no investigation conducted. The Apex Court passed final order in Crl.A.No.3388 of 2023 dated 31.10.2023 setting aside this Court order dated 21.09.2022 and remitted Crl.R.C.No.1291 of 2022 to the file of this Court directing to give opportunity and hear the 2 nd respondent. Thereafter, the 2 nd respondent impleaded and heard. 15. In view of the above factual position, after hearing the parties concerned and on perusal of materials produced, this Court finds there are materials to be probed and enquiry to be made with petitioner, 2 nd respondent, State Bank of India, Meenambakkam Branch officials and others. Hence, the impugned order, dated 13.06.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Alandur in Crl.M.P.No.1394 of 2021 is set aside. Simultaneously, in view of the order passed by the Apex Court in Crl.A.No.3388 of 2023 dated 31.10.2023, the FIR in Crime No.63 of 2022 turns non est in law and the same is quashed. 16. Hence, the 1 st respondent Police is directed to handover the entire case records relating to the petitioner's complaint to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Meenambakkam. On receipt of the same, The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Meenambakkam shall conduct enquiry on the petitioner's complaint, register a case if cognizable offence is made out, complete the investigation and file a final report within six months. 17. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed.