( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 6th December, 1985 passed by Shri P. K. Tain, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Criminal Revision No. 35 of 1984 which had in turn set aside the order dated 3rd February, 1984 passed by Shri R. S. Mahla, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, whereby the accused-petitioners had been discharged in case FIR No. 437182 of Police Station Karol Bagh, New Delhi, in respect of oflences u/ss 448/442/323/120-B/34 Indian Penal Code.

( 2 ) THE F. I. R. was lodged by respondent No. 1 Smt. Suvidya Yadav and according to the Smt. she along with her husband and children had been residing in Flat No. J-16, MIG, DDA Flats, Prasad Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, which had been taken by them from petitioner No. 2 Suresh Yadav in March 1980. She further alleged that they had paid a sum of Rs. 61,000 in foreign exchange and another sum of Rs. 36,000 to Suresh Yadav on account of the price in respect of this flat but on account of relationship no deed was executed and as the market price of this flat increased Suresh Yadav threatened them to vacate the same. It is further alleged that on 7th April. 1984 at about 11. 15 A. M. petitioners 1. 3 and 4 Surinder Kumar Yadav, Chander Prakash and Shashi Bala entered the said flat followed by three other persons and all of them started forcibly throwing away the goods and articles from the bed room of Smt. Suvidya Yadav. She was caught hold of by Surinder Kumar Yadav and Chander Prakash and the remaining accomplices placed their goods inside that room and she was not allowed to go out of the flat and the door from outside was closed. One of them removed the name plate of the complainant and fixed another plate on this flat. She gave information on telenhone No. 100 and at that time S. T. Raja Ram along with accused-petifiorier No. 2 Suresh Yadav came there and Suresh Yadav told Smt. Suvidya that he had already lodged a report against her and her husband and that they would have to vacate the flat.

( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that there was no prima facie offence made out against the accused-petitioners and he consequently discharged all of them but this order of discharge was set aside by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in the revision petition who directed the learned Magistrate to frame charges against all the accused-petitioners and try them in accordance with law.

( 4 ) WHILE discharging the accused-petitioners the learned Magistrate had also taken into consideration the documents produced by them and those doccments were the electricity and water bills and ration card pertaining to accuscd-petitioner No. 2 Suresh Yadav showing his address of the flat in dispute. Besides a photo copy of the letter issued by the Principal showing the address of Master Vikas son of Suresh Yadav as that of the flat in question as also the school record showing Master Vikas availing the bus facility from Prasad Nagar for school, were also produced by the accused persons and were taken note of by the learned Magistrate who also took into consideration the dismissal of the" temporary injunction application filed under Order 39 Rules I and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by Sham Singh Yadav husband of Smt. Suvidya Yadav in a suit filed by him against Suresh Yadav etc. for specific performance in respect of the flat in dispute and the observations of G. R. Luthra, J. while dismissing that application that Sham Singh Yadav had no prima facie case and that the said civil suit had been filed by Sham Singh Yadav after the incident in question subject-matter of the criminal complaint. Atfer consideration of the aforesaid documents the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that accused-petitioner No. 2 Suresh Yadav was in possession of a part of this flat being its lawful owner and on account of his being owner-in-possession, the provisions contained in sections 44l/448/452 I. PC were not attracted as the owner could not be prosecuted for tress-pas