S. Kirpal Singh & Anr. vs Inderjeet Kaur & Anr.
2009 Latest Caselaw 5235 Del

          HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


            Crl.M.A No.10439/2008 in Crl. M.C No. 2255 of 2008


                                             Reserved on: 04.12.2009
                                         Date of Decision: 15.12.2009

       S.KIRPAL SINGH & ANR                        ... Petitioners
                          Through:        Mr.Sudhanshu Batra, Adv.

                               Versus

       INDERJEET KAUR & ANR                   ...Respondents
                         Through: Mr.Vikram Nandrajog, Adv.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.L. BHAYANA
       1.      Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to
               see the judgment?                      Yes
       2.      To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes
       3.      Whether the judgment should be referred in the
               Digest?                                Yes


       S. L. BHAYANA, J.

By way of this application, the petitioner sought

expunging of the remarks noted by me in order dated 18th

July, 2008 against the petitioner. The impugned operative

portion of order dated 18th July, 2008 reads as under:

"Not only that, the son of the Petitioners, who is the husband of the complainant, had also done fraud with her by getting the divorce from a Court at New Zealand by making a false representation in the said Court although the respondent/ complainant does not have any passport in her name to go to New Zealand. Playing a fraud is a continuous

offence which has been played by the husband of the complainant."

2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

after going through the contents of the application and

records, I am of the prima facie view that the order dated

18th July, 2008 deserves to be modified and the remarks

passed against the petitioner needs to be expunged.

3. In view of the above, the application is allowed and

order dated 18th July, 2008 is modified to the extent that

the remarks, noted therein and reproduced above, against

the petitioner, may be treated as expunged.

4. The application stands disposed of.

S. L. BHAYANA, J

December 15, 2009