Maya v. State & ANR

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 366/2016 & Crl.M.As.10977/2016 & 10978/2016 MAYA ..... Petitioner Through:

None.

versus STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP for State along with Insp. Satish Chandra, P.S.Badarpur. Mr.K.Singhal, Advocate for R-2 CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA

O R D E R

% 27.11.2017

1. Despite the petition having been called out twice, none appears for the Petitioner.

2. Mr. K. Singhal, the learned counsel who is present on behalf of Respondent No.2, points out that the Petitioner's third daughter, Sheetal, continues to live with Respondent No.2 having been married to him for some years now. They also have two children.

3. The Court has perused the earlier orders passed in the matter and has noted that various attempts were made at mediation in persuading the parties to settle their disputes, but without success.

4. The Court sees no reason why the petition should be kept pending. Apart

from the fact that there are no satisfactory reasons for the extraordinary delay in preferring the Crl LP, there are on merits also no grounds made out against the judgment dated 26th February 2014 in SC No. 76 of 2012.

5. The petition and the pending applications are accordingly dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J.

I.S. MEHTA, J.

NOVEMBER 27, 2017 'anb'