Petitioner is one of the accused in Crime No.904 of 2010 of Thrissur West Police Station for offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). According to the second respondent/defacto complainant, she is the lawfully wedded wife of the son of petitioner, car involved in the case belonged to her husband and since his death she is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said vehicle as its owner. While so, petitioner and others committed theft of the said vehicle. Second respondent filed a complaint based on which the Police registered a case and the matter is under investigation. Petitioner challenges the complaint as well as the FIR. Learned counsel contended that petitioner is the sole legal heir of her son there was no lawful marriage between her son and the second respondent and consequent to the death of her son, ownership of the car vested with her. It is contended that even if the case of second respondent is accepted, the second respondent is only a co-owner of the car along with petitioner in which case she has constructive possession of the car even if it was in the actual custody of the second respondent. In the said situation if at all petitioner has removed the car, that does not attract the offence under Section 379 of the IPC. On the above contentions it is prayed that complaint and FIR may be quashed. Learned counsel for second respondent contended that there is a valid marriage between
