( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.12 OF 1999 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.12 OF 1999 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.12 OF 1999 Lahu Kanu Dhuri .. Petitioner/ Orig.respondent. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents. Mr.Raja B. Thakare for the petitioner. Mr.M.S.Patankar for respondent No.2. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, A.P.P. for respondent No.1 State. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 2nd June, 2008. DATED : 2nd June, 2008. DATED : 2nd June, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.Thakare for the petitioner, Mr.M.S.Patankar for respondent No.2 and Mr.Dedhia, learned A.P.P. for respondent No.1 State. 2. Respondent No.2 had initiated proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. and that the said proceedings came to be decided by the learned In-Charge Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai by order dated 4.12.1995 being application No.C.C.68/S/95. The respondent No.2 Chandrakant Vishnu Dhuri filed Criminal Revision No.92 of 1996 against the present petitioner. The learned ( 2 ) Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay granted the said Revision by order dated 15.12.1998 and directed the present applicant to put respondent No.2 in possession of the room concerned in the said application. Against the order dated 15.12.1998, the applicant has filed this Revision No.12 of 1999. As this application was taken up for hearing, learned Advocate Mr.Thakare and Mr.Patankar informed this Court that the rooms concerned in the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. are no more in existence. In view of this development, the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. have practically come to an end and there is no need for this Court to go into the correctness of the order dated 15.12.1998 because even if the said order is confirmed or otherwise, the said order cannot be put into action. 3. In view of this nothing survives in this revision application and is required to be disposed off accordingly. 4. Learned Advocate Mr.Patankar submitted that some alternate premises are being constructed and there is further likelihood that the same premises would be allotted to somebody who was concerned with the original premises in respect of which proceedings ( 3 ) under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. were initiated. In so far as the new premises which are being constructed, both parties are at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings to establish their right in respect of said premises. No views are expressed on the merits of those proceedings. 5. Learned Advocate Mr.Raja Thakare submitted that at the stage of admission of this petition, the applicant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.11,500/- and it was also ordered that the said amount be invested from time to time. In view of the disposal of this revision application, the said amount is now required to be returned to the applicant alongwith the interest whatever have been accrued on the principal amount of Rs.11,500/- In view of this, I pass the following order :- a) The revision application has become infructuous as the premises in question no more exists. b) If some new premises are being constructed and if either the applicant or respondent No.2 has a claim over the new premises which are being constructed, the said party is free to file appropriate proceedings ( 4 ) to establish its right in regard to the said premises. c) Office to refund to the applicant a sum of Rs.11,500/- which was deposited by the applicant. Office to encash the F.D.R. if the said amount is presently invested and pay the interest accrued thereon right from the first date of investment. 6. Application stands disposed off accordingly. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)