Mukta Gupta JUDGMENT
Mukta Gupta, J.
1. By the present revision petition, the Petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 21st November, 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge discharging respondents 2 to 11 from the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC.
2. Factual matrix of the case is that on 1st June, 2013, a PCR call was received which was recorded vide DD No. 30A stating about a quarrel and the same was assigned to SI Mukesh. In the meantime, the petitioner came to the police station and alleged that her landlord had thrown her household articles on the street. SI Mukesh along with Ct. Budh Prakash reached the place of incident i.e. House No. B-113, Gali No. 6, Chand Bagh, Delhi and found the articles of the petitioner lying on the street. FIR No. 229/2013 was registered at PS Gokal Puri under Sections 354/356/380/342/323/452/506/34/120B on the basis of the written complaint by the petitioner wherein she stated that on 1st June, 2013, when she was sitting in her house, her landlord Zahir along with his son, elder brother and one more person, entered the house and threatened her to leave the house otherwise she would be gang raped by them. When she requested three months time, Zahir, his elder brother, his son and the other person tore her clothes and started molesting her. In the meantime, the landlady, Gulshan came there along with her daughter in law and her two daughters, her sister and three daughters of Zahir and Jaitun and started beating the petitioner. They asked the petitioner to vacate the house and started throwing her articles on the street. In the meantime, some more people joined them and threw her household goods. She further stated that the daughter of brother of Zahir snatched her cell phone and handed it over to Zahir's daughter. She also stated there were ` 50,000/- lying under the bed and she suspected that Gulshan, her daughter in law and Zahir have taken the amount.
3. Since charge sheet was filed for offences punishable under Section 395 IPC as well, the case was committed to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge who vide the impugned order dated 21st November, 2014 came to the conclusion that from the statement of the witnesses it was not evident that common object of unlawful assembly was to steal ` 50,000/- or snatch the mobile phone, hence Section 395 IPC was not made out and rather Section 392 IPC was attracted. Since the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC and the other offences for which charge sheet was filed were triable by the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, discharging respondent Nos. 2 to 11 for offence punishable under Section 395 IPC, the matter was sent back for framing of charge and trial to the Metropolitan Magistrate. Hence the present petitio........