AMANPREET SANDHU Vs. U.K. SHANDILYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 03-01-2015 passed by the Ld. ASJ-02, (East) Spl. Judge (NDPS), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Crl.(A) No. 26/14 with the prayer to call for the records of the Additional Sessions Judge-02 (East), Special Judge (NDPS), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and set aside the order dated 03.01.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Crl. (A) No. 26/14.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was married to the son of respondents No. 1 and 2 on 30.11.2007, and a male child was born from this wedlock. The petitioner resided with the respondents No. 1 and 2 till July, 2008 and in August, 2008, the petitioner and her husband (respondent No. 3 herein) shifted in a separate house at S Block, Greater Kailash and in between they also moved to Gurgaon. On 16.10.2012, the petitioner shifted to B-166, Mount Kailash, East of Kailash. The petitioner and her husband (respondent No. 3 herein) in October 2010, took up a house adjacent to the house of the respondents No. 1 and 2 in which the renovation was started six months later and petitioner never moved in the house of the respondent No. 1 and 2. According to the petitioner, after the birth of the child she had temporarily shifted in a new house B-166 and thereafter went on to live with her parents. She stayed with her parents from 01-08-2012 to 16-10-2012 and on 16.10.2012 she shifted to B-166, Mount Kailash, East of Kailash where she lived with her husband (respondent No. 3 herein).

(3.) According to the petitioner, she had difficulties in living with her husband (respondent No. 3 herein) and in her complaint she had mentioned several incidents referring to the occasional conduct of the mother of her husband i.e. respondent No. 2 herein who is her mother-in-law. It is alleged against respondent No. 1 in her complaint by the petitioner that he had started writing mails to her parents making false complaints against her and also mentioned an alleged threat given to her by him stating that he could make their life hell being a lawyer. It is further alleged against him that on one occasion he came with respondent No. 2 and 3 and they all asked to take the child of the parties with them for the night.