IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.3179-M of 2008 Date of Decision:6.9.2010 Sukhwinder Kaur and another .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. K.V. Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. N.G. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the parties agree that the matter has been rendered infructuous. Dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. However, it is pointed out that this Court vide order 7.2.2008, had directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.11,000/- with the Registry as the complainant was impleaded as respondent No.2 and the said amount was ordered to be payable to the complainant on account of litigation expenses in case she puts in appearance before the Court. Thereafter, Mr. N.G. Sharma, Advocate, had put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 on the basis of power of attorney received on behalf of the said complainant. However, respondent No.2-complainant did not appear before the Court nor learned counsel for respondent No.2 has been paid his legal fee as stated by him at the bar. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.11,000/- deposited by the petitioner with the Registry as litigation expenses is ordered to be released to Mr. N.G. Sharma, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2. 6.9.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE