ORDER

1. Curative Petition (Crl.) Nos. 24-25 of 2010, has been filed by the National Commission for Women in Review Petition (Crl.) Nos. 384-385 of 2009 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1325-1326 of 2009, which were disposed of by this Court on 27th July, 2009. By the said judgment and order, this Court set aside the summoning order, which had been passed on 21st March, 2005, against the Appellants by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi.

2. The Respondent No. 3 in the curative petition, Monica, was married to one Vikas Sharma, son of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the curative petition. On account of differences, the Respondent No. 3 filed a complaint against the said Respondents before the aforesaid Magistrate on 9th September, 2004, being No. 287/1A Under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Summons issued on such complaint was challenged by the said Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Delhi High Court Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, being Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 4742 of 2005, for quashing the summoning order dated 21st March, 2005. The said revision, having been dismissed, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the curative petitions, came before this Court by way of Criminal Appeal Nos. 1325-1326 of 2009. The said appeals were disposed of by two Hon'ble Judges of this Court upon holding that no case Under Sections 498A or 406 Indian Penal Code had been made out against the Respondent No. 1, Bhaskar Lal Sharma, and, as far as the Respondent No. 2, Vimla Sharma, is concerned, she could be proceeded with only Under Section 406 Indian Penal Code.

3. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the Respondent No. 3, Monica, filed the review petitions, which were dismissed and it is against such dismissal that the present Curative Petition (Crl.) Nos. 24-25 of 2010, have been filed by the National Commission for Women.

4. Appearing in support of the petitions, Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior Counsel, pointed out several paragraphs from the judgment itself, which in her submission, amounted to cruelty within the definition of Section 498A Indian Penal Code Ms. Malhotra, submitted that the same was sufficient for issuance of summons Under Section 498A, as has been done by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

5. It was also submitted by her that the manner in which the appeals had been heard and disposed of, quashing the summoning order at the very initial stage, was also improper, since the trial was yet to be conducted and evidence was yet to be adduced in the matter.

6. Ms. Malhotra's submissions were supported by the learned Solicitor General, Mr. Mohan Parasaran, who was of the view that the matter required reconsideration.

7. As far as the Respondent No. 3, Monica, is concerned, although, she had applied to appear in-person, the Registrar concerned has found that though she was in full possession of all the facts, she was not emotionally in a position to represent her case in the matter and, accordingly, suggested an Amicus Curiae to represent her.

8. At this juncture, we may also indicate that a separate curative petition has been filed by Monica, being Curative Petition No. D 10575 of 2010, in which we have not till date issued any notice.

9. Opposing the prayers made in the curative petitions, Mr. Uday U. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 only, firstly questioned the locus standi of the National Commission for Women, to appear and maintain a curative petition in the matter, having particular regard to the decision of this Court in National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi and Anr. (2010) 12 SCC 599, in which this Court was of the view that an appeal at the instance of the National Commission for Women was not maintainable, since such a right was a statutory right and the National Commission for Women, was not even a party in the proceedings.

10. Mr. Lalit also urged that in any event, from the facts disclosed in the judgment under consideration, there