Crl. M.C. No. 2255/2008 Page 1 of 2 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 Crl. M.C. No. 2255/2008 Page 2 of 2 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