ROOPA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 16.11.2010 passed in complaint case no. 4199 of 2010 under Sections 447, 504, 506 Ipc, Police Station Mandi, District - Saharanpur passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, IV, Saharanpur and further to quash the order dated 22.6.2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Saharanpur in Criminal Revision No. 32 of 2012 (Smt. Roopa Gupta vs. State and another).

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present case are that the aforesaid complaint was filed by the opposite party no.2 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IV, Saharanpur with the averments that he was the owner of house no. 6/1744, Gyan Vihar Colony, near Tota Chowk, Saharanpur. Since his father was ill, therefore he had to live with his father in his parental house. The petitioner was well -known to him therefore, on her request, she was permitted to live in the house in question for a period of three months. She had stated that she will be purchasing a house at Bhuteshwar Road and after the expiry of three months, she will shift in that house. Believing on her version, she was permitted to live in the house in question. When after the expiry of the aforesaid period of three months, she did not vacate the house in question, the respondent no.2 told her to vacate the same but she did not vacate on one or the other pretext. When the respondent no.2 felt that petitioner was trying to occupy the house in question, he sent a notice to the petitioner to vacate the same terminating the permission given to her but she did not vacate the house. On 17.7.2010 the respondent no.2 went to his house and asked the petitioner to vacate the house in question but she abused him and also gave threats to kill him.

(3.) ON the basis of the above complaint, the Magistrate concerned recorded statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and after hearing the complainant, by the order dated 16.11.2010 summoned the petitioner to face the trial for the offences under Sections 447, 504 and 506 IPC.