CRL. M.C. 2292/2010 Page 1 of 2 * 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 CRL. M.C. 2292/2010 Page 2 of 2 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