1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No. 446/2009 M/s Map Infrastructures through its Partner Prakash Vitthalrao Ekhankar vs. State of Maharashtra, through the Additional Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, Economic Cell, Civil Lines, Nagpur and another. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. CORAM : A. P. Lavande & Prasanna B. Varale, JJ DATE : 26.11.2009 Heard Mr. Parchure, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mirza, learned A.P.P. for the respondents. By this petition, the petitioner seeks directions against the respondents to investigate the offence registered pursuant to F.I.R. dated 16.11.2008 lodged by the petitioner at Sitabuldi Police Station. Affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 discloses that pursuant to the F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner, the Officer In-charge of Sitabuldi Police Station has taken up the investigation and initially arrested one Mr. Rajes Bodad and Mr. Anil Jain who was named in F.I.R. could not be traced as he was not available. However, Mr. Anil Jain filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge, Nagpur 2` which was dismissed. Similar prayer was rejected by this Court. Mr. Anil Jain filed S.L.P. before the Apex Court in which liberty was granted to Mr. Anil Jain to approach before the Sessions Judge with bail application. It is the case of the respondents that pursuant to leave granted by the Apex Court, Mr. Anil Jain approached the Sessions Judge with application for bail and same has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. This position has not been disputed by Mr. Parchure, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Mirza, learned A.P.P. states that the respondent no.2 is investigating the offence and after completion of the investigation appropriate action shall be taken in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C.. In view of the above position and the statement made by Mr. Mirza, the cause of action involved in the present petition does not survive. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE patle 3`