Crl. Misc. No. M-1789 of 2011 -1 - IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-1789 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.7.2011 Daya Nand and another ..Petitioners. Vs. State of Haryana and another ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present : Mr. Bijender Dhankar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Vermani, Addl. Advocate General Haryana. Rajesh Bindal, J. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that petitioner No.1 in the present case has expired on 3.4.2011. This fact was intimated to him by son of the petitioners. He submitted that petition qua petitioner No.1 has been rendered infructuous. Ordered accordingly. On 20.1.2011, this Court directed impleadment of the complainant/wife as respondent No.2 in the memo of parties subject to petitioners' depositing ` 15,000/- to be paid to the complainant towards litigation expenses. Notice of motion was issued for 7.3.2011. On the next date, time was granted to the petitioners' for depositing ` 15,000/- as needful had not been done. Thereafter notice was issued to respondent No.2. As per office report dated 13.5.2011, previous notice issued to respondent No.2 for 5.4.2011 has been received back served but she did not put in appearance on 17.5.2011. Even today, no one has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. Learned counsel for petitioner No.2 stated that she has already joined investigation. The husband was arrested and has already been released on regular bail. Crl. Misc. No. M-1789 of 2011 -2 - Learned counsel for the State did not dispute the fact that petitioner No.2 has joined investigation. He further submitted that her custodial interrogation is not required. Considering the aforesaid fact, interim bail granted to the petitioner No.2 on 20.1.2011 is made absolute. The petition stands disposed of. As respondent No.2/complainant has not appeared, the amount of ` 15,000/- deposited by the petitioners initially for payment to respondent No.2 on account of litigation expenses in this Court are lying deposited with the registry, the same may be refunded to petitioner No.2 by the registry by way of demand draft. ( Rajesh Bindal ) 29.7.2011 Judge Meenu