Sanjeev Sachdeva JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
1. Petitioners impugn order dated 28.03.2017 whereby the Revisional Court has reversed the order on charge dated 28.01.2017 passed by the Trial Court in case FIR No. 944/2015 under Section 323/341/354/509/506/34 IPC, P.S. Vasant Kunj (North).
2. By order dated 28.01.2017, the Trial Court had discharged the petitioners of all offences. By the impugned order dated 28.03.2017 the Revisional Court set aside the order of the Trial Court discharging the petitioners and directed framing of a charge under Section 323/34 against the petitioners and under Section 509 and 354 against the petitioner No. 2.
3. Subject FIR was registered on the complaint of one Ms. Vandana Sharma. Petitioners are the mother and son and neighbours of the complainant.
4. As per the allegations in the FIR at about 10 PM complainant was driving back home. When she came to park her car, her neighbour along with her son (petitioners herein) stepped out from their car and stood in front of her car and stopped her from parking.
5. It is alleged that the other neighbour, Mr. Dawood was also parking his car alongside the complainant's car. She stepped out to greet her neighbour, Mr. Dawood and requested him to park the car diagonally to which he agreed and assisted her in parking the car.
6. It is alleged that when the complainant stepped out of the car, she switched on the phone's video to record petitioner No. 1's shouting, abusing and use of vulgar language against her and her neighbour. While she was video recording, petitioners started physically assaulting her and tried to snatch her phone.
7. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 started pulling her clothes and hitting her and her son (petitioner No. 2) also joined her. It is alleged that they assaulted and threatened her that she could not video graph and manhandled her.
8. The complainant further alleges that she heard petitioner No. 1 telling her neighbour that she is a whore. The old woman is a whore and don't support her. It is alleged that the complainant thereafter went to her neighbour, the President of the Resident Welfare Association and apprised him of what had transpired. The other neighbour, Mr. Dawood was also present and he said that he would be happy to record what he saw to the police.
9. The FIR further alleges that petitioner No. 1 and her family had been humiliating her for the last 15 years and made other allegations of harassment in the past.
10. In her subsequent statement given under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the complainant in addition to what she had stated in her initial complaint added that she used her phone to video graph, however, when she got out of the car, petitioner No. 1 came and pulled her and grappled her collar and slapped her. She and her son (petitioner No. 2) tried to snatch the phone and therefore, she could not record anything that happened. She alleges that when petitioner No. 1 was hitting her and abusing her, her son (petitioner No. 2) grabbed her and put his hand inside her T-shirt and assaulted her.
11. The Trial Court in the order dated 28.01.2017 has noticed th........