Jai Kishore Sharma & Ors vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 3401 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+           CRL. M.C. 2292/2010 and Crl.M.A. 12421/2010

                                                        Decided on 20.07.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :

JAI KISHORE SHARMA & ORS                             ..... Petitioners
                    Through: Mr. Keshav Kaushik, Advocate

                      versus

STATE                                                        ..... Respondent
                           Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State


CORAM

* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

     1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may                       No
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                      No

     3. Whether the judgment should be                              No
        reported in the Digest?

HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482

of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.29/2009 lodged by the

petitioner No.2, against her father, petitioner No.1 and brothers, petitioners

No.3 & 4 under Sections 323/342/506/34 IPC and registered with Police

Station: Mianwali Nagar, Delhi.

2. It is stated in the petition that on 26.5.2009, the petitioner No.2

married one Shri Vimal Sharma, without intimating the members of her

family. As a result, her father, petitioner No.1 remained under the

impression that his daughter was missing. He therefore filed a writ of

habeas corpus in this Court, registered as WP(Crl.)1321/2009. In the

meantime, the petitioner No.2 lodged the aforesaid FIR against the

petitioner No.1 and petitioners No.3 & 4, which is now sought to be quashed

on the ground that the petitioner No.2 has informed the petitioner No.1 that

she had entered into a matrimonial alliance with Shri Vimal Sharma of her

own free will and volition and without any undue influence or coercion from

any side. It is further stated that the relation between the petitioner No.2

and the petitioner No.1 and the other family members has normalised and is

very cordial. It is, therefore, submitted that in the interest of the marital life

of petitioner No.2 and considering the fact that the petitioners No.1, 3 & 4

have reconciled with the marriage of petitioner No.2, no useful purpose

would be served in proceeding further with the aforesaid FIR.

3. Petitioners No.1 to 4, who are present in Court, confirm the

aforesaid settlement and restoration of a harmonious relationship with each

other and state that they are no longer interested in taking the matter

further.

4. The Court has heard the parties. In view of the fact that the

petitioner No.2 states that she has not filed the present petition under any

fear, threat or coercion from any side and she has married Mr.Vimal Sharma

of her own free will and volition and has been residing with him at her

matrimonial home peacefully, without any threat or harassment extended by

petitioners No.1, 3 & 4, it is deemed appropriate to quash the aforesaid FIR

No.29/2009 and all the proceedings arising therefrom.

5. The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending application.

                                                               (HIMA KOHLI)
JULY   20, 2010                                                   JUDGE
rkb