JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. Petitioners impugn judgment dated 26.04.2016, whereby, the Revisional Court has allowed the revision petitions filed by respondent No.2 as also the State impugning the order of charge of the Trial Court dated 17.12.2015.

2. The Trial Court, by order dated 17.12.2015, had framed a charge against the petitioner No.1 Bhupender Singh Verma under Sections 354/354A/323 IPC but had discharged the petitioners of the offences under Sections 452/506 IPC and petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 of the offences under Sections 354/354A/323 IPC.

3. Respondent No.2 complainant is the sister-in-law of the petitioner No.1 being his brother's wife. Petitioner No.2 is the wife of the petitioner No.1. Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the daughters of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2.

4. Subject FIR No.498/2014 was registered under Sections 452/354/354A/323/506/34 IPC, Police Station Frash Bazar on the complaint of the respondent No.2 contending that she was a resident of ground floor and second floor in property No.D-22./B, East Arjun Nagar along with her husband and daughter. It is contended that after the death of her mother-in-law the property was divided and parties were residing in separate portions.

5. It is alleged that the father-in-law (since deceased) was having evil eyes upon her and a number of times he was warned to reform himself. Petitioner No.1, who was a having a separate personal portion, in order to grab the property instigated her father-in-law on one pretext or the other.

6. It is alleged that on 24.10.2013 at about 6 pm when the complainant was alone with her younger daughter and her husband was out in connection with his business her father-in-law along with the petitioners came to the gate of the complainant's house coming from their separate portions and firstly her father-in-law entered the house along with an electricity bill and asked her to take the same but she refused. In the meantime, the lights went off. It is alleged that her father-in-law caught hold of her chest and when she tried to remove herself, he threatened that either she should follow his directions to have sex or else she and her family would be dispossessed and that the petitioners were standing outside and they will come on his calling and when she clearly refused, petitioner no. 1 entered the house started mercilessly beating her with fist and kick blows.

7. It is alleged that the petitioner No.1 tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant. It is alleged that her father-in-law uttered abuses at her. The complainant with the assistance of her younger daughter raised an alarm and other people of the locality collected on the spot. It is alleged that if the persons of the locality had not collected, she apprehended that she would be raped by her father-in-law and the petitioner No.1. Further, it is alleged that while leaving the spot they all threatened that in case the complainant and her husband did not vacate the portion of the property, her entire family would be removed. Further, it is alleged that when her husband returned back at 7 pm, the entire incident was narrated to him. He called the police but no complaint was registered by the police on the ground that Delhi elections were going on.

8. In a subsequent statement, recorded on 25.06.2014 under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the complainant alleged that her father-in-law hit his hand on her chest and subsequently her brother-in-law (petitioner No.1) also hit his hand on her chest and started misbehaving with her. Her sister-in-law, petitioner No.2 and her daughter Dolly said that they would disrobe her and thereafter they beat her.

9. In her further supplementary statement recorded on 25.06.2014, the prosecutrix contended that when the petitioners were beating her, her daughter, who suddenly got up and seeing the condition of the complainant started making a noise. Suddenly, there was a knock on the door and when she opened the door, she found that her brother was standing ther