The petitioner's ability to establish her case before the trial court due to her possession of complete details of the accused and witnesses, and the judicious exercise of power under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for police investigation.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The present petition has been preferred under section 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking setting aside of the order dated 28.02.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Patiala House Court (ND), Delhi in CR No.159/2019 titled as Kusum Lata vs. Shikha & Ors. dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner and upholding the order dated 03.01.2019 passed by learned MM rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Petitioner further seeks directions to be issued to respondent no.1 for registration of FIR against respondent nos.2 to 12.

2. The brief facts of the case, as narrated in the present petition, are that petitioner is the mother-in-law of respondent no.2 and owner of the property situated at RZ-38-39/184, Gali No.2, Durga Park, New Delhi-110045 which consists of two floors where petitioner is residing with her husband.

3. On 29.10.2009, son of the petitioner got married to respondent no.2 and since then, they were residing peacefully at the first floor of the said property. Since 2018, respondent no.2 started causing problems for petitioner and her husband and used to fight with them asking them to transfer the rights of all their movable, immovable properties and business of husband of petitioner to the husband of respondent no.2 and herself. On 17.06.2018, the petitioner and her husband disentitled their son from all their properties by publishing it in the newspaper of Indian Express and Jansatta . Thereafter on 18.06.2018, husband of the petitioner made a complaint against respondent nos.2 to 8 alleging that they forcibly entered into the house of the petitioner and threatened them of dire consequences, subsequently subjected them to abuse, manhandle, defamation, mental torture, harassment, etc. however, no action was taken by police. Thereafter, on 27.06.2018, just to avoid any more dispute between petitioner and respondent no.2, petitioner s son took a rented accommodation and decided to shift along with respondent no.2 and their children, however, respondent no.2 refused to leave the said property and again called respondent nos.3 to 8 who threatened the petitioner and her husband. On 28.06.2018, respondent no.2 called the police and made a complaint and after receiving the complaint, police called the petitioner, her husband, husband of respondent no.2 and respondent nos.3 & 4 to Police Station, Sagarpur. The police did not take any action and asked respondent nos.3 & 4 to take respondent no.2 to their home and thus respondent no.2 went to her parent s home with her relatives and vacated the said property. The son of the petitioner had already shifted to the rented accommodation and vacated the portion of the said property which was in their possession and petitioner had the possession of the whole property.

4. On the morning of 29.07.2018, respondent no.2 came to the said property with a large group of people including respondent nos.3 to 12 to forcibly take possession of the said property and threatened the petitioner and her husband but it was of no avail as the neighbours of the petitioner helped and protected them from respondent no.2. The whole incident was recorded in the CCTV camera installed in the said property. After the abovementioned incident, on 07.08.2018, husband of the petitioner again made a complaint to the SHO, Sagarpur Police Station against the respondents alleging that they forcefully entering into their house with intent to assault and threatened to kill but again no action was taken by the police.

5. Thereafter in the night of 12.08.2018 at around 11:40 pm, all the respondents with other 10-15 people came to the said property and tried to forcefully break open the main door and illegally enter inside the house of the petitioner. Respondent no.2 broke open the lock on the main gate with hammers and other equipment. The whole incident was recorded in the CCTV camera but respondent no.2 b