IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3106 of 2010 Date of Decision: 4.8.2010 Reena ..Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. J.S.Mor, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S.Rana, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the respondent-State of Haryana. Mr. V.S.Punia, Advocate, for respondent No. 9. ***** MUKUL MUDGAL, C.J. (Oral) Learned counsel for respondents No. 9 states that respondents No. 6 to 12 have no concern with the married couple now and gave an undertaking that they shall not harm their physical well being. In view of the earlier orders passed by this Court as well as the statement made by learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 to 12 today in the Court, no further orders are called in this petition which stands disposed of as of now having become infructuous. However, in case, the petitioner and her husband have any other grievance regarding their physical well being, it will be open to her or her husband to approach the State authorities for adequate security. (MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE (AJAY TEWARI) 04.08.2010 JUDGE 'ravinder'