TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (5) TMI 1149
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....34 IPC registered by P.S. Mianwali Nagar, Delhi on the complaint of the present petitioner against her husband, parents-in-law, brother-inlaw and the respondent no.2/sister-in-law. The respondent no. 2 filed an application seeking permission to go abroad. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed a detailed order dated 14.05.2011 granted the permission to go abroad. 3. It is alleged that the petitioner could not file the reply as the copy of the application was not furnished to them despite the Court directions. In any case, there was a strong opposition to the permission being granted to the respondent no.2 to travel abroad on the ground that the husband of the present petitioner Arun Handa and her parents-in-law are already settled in U....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r returning back of India. 5. The applicant shall also place on record an FDR in the sum of Rs.2 lakh which shall be released back to her on her return back to India. 6. The original documents pertaining to property in her name i.e. S-203, HL Area, Sector-6,Dwarka, New Delhi shall also be placed on court record before leaving the territory of India. The said original documents shall also be returned to her on her return back to India." 5. The present petitioner felt aggrieved from the said order and preferred a revision which was considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the parents-in-law of the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order in High Court in exercise of its power in Section 482 Cr. P.C. in order to prevent abuse of process of law or to secure the ends of justice, but ordinarily in the absence of this, the Court would discourage a party to have a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 9. I feel the entire attempt of the petitioner is to have a second revision against the order of the learned Magistrate or even for that matter against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. This is not permissible under Section 397(2) Cr. P.C. Having said so, even on merits, I find that the entire exercise on the part of the petitioner is to put a spoke in the travel plan of the respondent no. 2 only out of sense of vendetta rather than a genuine objection to an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Unfortunately, the husband and the parents-in-law are the British passport holder and if they have not submitted to the processes of law in India, it will be totally unfair to assume at this stage that the sister-in-law who too incidentally is a British passport holder would not come back where her husband is working here and her children are studying here. Further, she herself is also working as a teacher and has immoveable property. She in my view cannot be held as a hostage to procure the attendance of the other recalcitrant accused persons. In such a situation the entire thrust of the present petitioner is to put pressure on the husband and other family members by ensuring that the respondent no. 2 is not permitted to travel abroad. 1....