IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 831 of 2008 Sakalanand Juyal and another …… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ..…. Respondents Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. 2. Mr. B.S. Parihar, the learned Brief Holder submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioners has now become infructuous as the police after completion of the investigation in the case submitted the chargesheet against the petitioner No.1 Sakalanand Juyal before the Court concerned. He has further submitted that petitioner No.2 Smt. Vimla has not been charge sheeted as no prima-facie evidence is collected against her. This fact has been made in para 2 of the counter affidavit filed by the State. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also stated that after submission of the chargesheet, the petitioner has been enlarged on bail, as such this petition has become infructuous. 3. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. 4. Interim order dated 06.11.2008 stands vacated automatically. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 17.04.2009 Shiv 2