The Magistrate must apply his mind before passing an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and must not pass these orders mechanically on the mere asking by the complainant.

Ved Prakash Vaish, J.

1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), the petitioner challenges the order dated 23.3.2013 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate-10, South West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi whereby the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 156(3) read with Section 190 of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Sections 380/392/394/445/446/448/451/453/454/457/34 IPC. The petitioner/complainant is the owner of RZF-172-B, Gali No.32, Sadh Nagar-II, Near Pradhan Chowk, Palam Colony, New Delhi. The son of the petitioner, Sunil Swain was in love with proposed accused No.1/ Mayuri Ruhella. Both of them insisted their parents for solemnizing their marriage and finally on 11.3.2012, the marriage between Sunil Swain and Mayuri Ruhella/ respondent no. 2 was solemnized. After their marriage, both of them stayed in the matrimonial house for 2-3 days and then went to Vaishno Devi. After about one week, accused No.1 starting misbehaving with the complainant, her husband and her son and accused No.3 was informed about the said behaviour of accused no. 1. Accused No.3 requested the complainant to send accused No.1 back to their house, for about ten days and accordingly she was sent to her parental house for about 15 days. The complainant also stated that accused No.1 stayed at the matrimonial home till 29.6.2012 and again on 30.6.2012 accused No.1 went to her parents house till 15.8.2012. In the meantime, accused Nos.3 & 4 came to the house of the complainant on three-four occasions to discuss about indifferent feeling and unhappiness of accused No.1 in the matrimonial house. The complainant, her husband and her son/Sunil went to bring back accused No.1 but she refused. After persistent persuasion by Accused Nos.3 & 4, accused No.1 agreed and accompanied the complainant, her husband and Sunil back to the matrimonial house. However, accused No.1’s attitude and bad behaviour did not change with her husband, she used to quarrel with the complainant, her husband and her son on trivial issues. It is also alleged that on 5.9.2012 at about 10.30 p.m. accused No.3 & 4 came to house of the petitioner and started abusing the petitioner, her husband and her son/ Sunil. On 6.9.2012, accused No.3 & 4 again came to the house of the petitioner and asked the petitioner to send accused No.1 with them for a week and accordingly, accused No.1 was taken back by them. It is also alleged by the complainant that due to continuous misbehaviour and bad attitude of accused No.1, son of the petitioner resigned from his job and went away from the house without informing anyone about his whereabouts. Thereafter, son of the petitioner telephonically informed his father/ husband of petitioner that he is living in Odisha but did not disclose the location of his whereabouts. On 17.9.2012 the petitioner and her husband went to Hyderabad to visit their elder son, Anil and stayed there till mid of October, 2012 and, thereafter, went to their home town in Odisha.

3. It is also alleged by the complainant that on 15.11.2012 at about 7 p.m. in the absence of the petitioner, all the accused persons along with three police officials came to the house of the petitioner/complainant and broke open all the locks on the ground, first, second and third floor, despite objection being raised by the neighbours of the petitioner. Subsequently, one of the neighbours namely, Mahavir informed PCR but to no avail.

4. On 19.11.2012 when the petitioner and her husband came back from Odisha, they were astonished to see the main door of the premises closed from inside. The neighbours of the petitioner informed that since 15.11.2012 accused No.1 & 2 have been residing in the house, after breaking all the locks. The husband of the petitioner filed a c